Let's get this stupid debate straightened out once and for all
Mike
solve anything' and all this other lily-livered bullshit. Lets establish why
there is a death penalty.
When some human piece of shit abducts, rapes, tortures, or just cold
bloodedly kills a person because it is to their convenience, ie to silence a
witness, or just so they can drive the victim;'s car around for a day or
two- WHATEVER. These people do not deserve any rights. The only reason they
are guaranteed rights under the US constitution, is on the possible chance
that they did not do the crime. Once it is certain that they are murderers,
they have nothing coming. Please, don;'t address this part of it, this is
only my opinion, I know you can try to make this part the entire subject of
this post , but it isn't the point I am trying to make- so don't address
this part.
The reason there is a death penalty, is to pay back murderers with fear,
pain and death. To give them what they gave their victims. I do not want to
rehabilitate them. I do not want to just keep them where they cannot hurt
anyone else- I want them dead. Just like if they killed one of my loved
ones, I want them dead just as badly when they harm a stranger's loved one.
DEAD. Furthermore, I don't even think it would be wrong to punish the
family of murders, ie, to make them pay the cost of trial and execution, or
some reasonable part thereof, based on their income. In other words, if
some ghetto or trailer park skank has a bunch of fucking wild kids that are
animals just like mom and dad, I think it is their fault too, especially,
when some fucking planet of the apes- looking bitch has no husband, 9 kids,
and 4 of them end up charged with first degree crimes by the time they are
twenty -five. Fuck the parents too- they are lowlife people- make them
fucking pay for what their lack of being a decent human being has cost
society. They have fucking kids, don't give a fuck about them, the kids
already have the genetic makeup of a sub-human criminal, and with the
lowlife crack-alcohol whatever addict mom 's input(which is nothing), the
kids end up criminals too- and we are supposed to give a fuck if they don't
like the idea that they are gonna be executed for murder? Get fucking real.
I will say it in one short statement the death penalty is to pay back
vicious criminals for harming innocent people. It isn't supposed to be
nice, or painless, or dignified, it is death, and as I have said before,
if it was my family he killed, that fucking animal "Tiny" Davis' smoking,
blood and boiled -mucous covered , purple , burnt - up face picture would
be on my wall, and on a t shirt that I would wear every day for the rest of
my life.
Murderers should be hanged in a place where the public can go watch if they
want, and the bodies should not be allowed to be claimed, they should go
for parts, or fertilizer. The condemned should have no rights or say, and
neither should anyone acting in his behalf.Mike.
Exador
on some imagined rational grounds, but I suspect your rant is closer to the
real reason. Thankfully, I live in a more civilised society than the one you
inhabit.
--
Cheers,
Craig
"Mike" <mik...@home.com> wrote in message
news:xBVS7.271964$ez.37...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
Dennis Tetreault
<mister...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Thanks for your honesty. Most proponents try and justify the death penalty
>on some imagined rational grounds, but I suspect your rant is closer to the
>real reason. Thankfully, I live in a more civilised society than the one you
>inhabit.
>
Really? And what color is the sky in YOUR world?
Exador
fortunate enough to live in a country where the Septics are few, and their
problems far away...
--
Cheers,
Craig
"Dennis Tetreault" <den...@ma.ultranet.com> wrote in message
news:3c1c346...@news.ma.ultranet.com...
Jürgen
brutalization-effect of the DP, may read this the original post from Mike.
Seldom I read a so good characterization of the purpose and motive of the
US-DP, including the WANTED torturing aspect, that aPV permanently claims to
be non-existent.)
Mike schrieb in Nachricht ...
>I see people trying to say "it's not a deterrent" or 'it's not going to
>solve anything' and all this other lily-livered bullshit. Lets establish
why
>there is a death penalty.
> When some human piece of shit abducts, rapes, tortures, or just cold
>bloodedly kills a person because it is to their convenience, ie to silence
a
>witness, or just so they can drive the victim;'s car around for a day or
>two- WHATEVER. These people do not deserve any rights. The only reason
they
>are guaranteed rights under the US constitution, is on the possible chance
>that they did not do the crime. Once it is certain that they are murderers,
>they have nothing coming. Please, don;'t address this part of it, this is
>only my opinion, I know you can try to make this part the entire subject
of
>this post , but it isn't the point I am trying to make- so don't address
>this part.
This is much more than your opinion. This is living practice in view of
DR-inmates in the US. The appeals merely are safeguards for the DP-system
itself and all the persons partitioning in the death-sentence (DS),
safeguards for to keep clear the conscience of anyone concerned with a
death-sentence or execution. The confirmation of the DS by as many instances
as possible allows the single individual to pass the buck of his own
responsibility to "society", i.e. to a mass of affirmators to his individual
part in the decision to kill a human.
The reasoning for this admittedly provocating statement above: Whether any
appeal is sucessful or not depends not anyway upon the mere existence of the
appeal but upon the convict's DEFENSE and their qualification. These now are
NOT a concern of the appeal but of PRIVATE persons. Thus, the appeal itself
and what in it's frame is provided AUTOMATICALLY, by the JUSTICE SYSTEM
ITSELF, is not ANYWAY aiming a commutation of the sentence or even an
exoneration. The appeal WANTS to confirm the DS in the very first place, and
a reasonable defender is a DISTURBING factor in this the appeals-process.
Yeah, Mike Scrooge, I well can imagine you alongside with a group of
dogooders, alltogether armed with their private Boom-Boom-Sticks entering
the Ghettos for to visit any Death-Row inmates' related for to press from
them a handful of $ as a contribution to the $2-3 Millions expense of a
death sentence and execution. I see you entering the pathetic hole where the
minimum wagers or unemployed live their lives at the existence's minimum and
you playing the Terminator there for that one of their family became guilty.
Yep, Sir Scrooge, you'll show'em. If they can not afford the legal costs
that your death penalty system invests for pure self-protection in the DS
then at least they should pay the $89 for the lethal injection killing their
guilty loved one, shouldn't they?
It remains a lot more to reply to your post, but I can't. Emotion is too
strong, simply, for to keep a moderate style, furthermore I doubt in the
fruitfulness of any attempt to make you think about what guilt is, where it
comes from and whether anyone could pay as a living human in secularity for
his guilt even if he can not make his crime undone.
Jürgen
P.s. You with this post made not only a PV's claims equating Ground Zero but
explained all arbitrariness in the DP-system, too. I dunno whether mass
executions like you implicitely are proposing actually would find your
pleasure if were going to happen in US-reality, but surely any (mitigant)
circumstances of any homicidal crime play Zero part in your eyes. You are
not interested in any restricted use of the DP as a safeguard against
permanent threateners but one can serve you ANY guilty as a candidate for
the DP. You like it to play the ultimate judge, and not a scintilla more.
vivacious
"Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c1c2778$0$15116$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Thanks for your honesty. Most proponents try and justify the death penalty
> on some imagined rational grounds, but I suspect your rant is closer to
the
> real reason. Thankfully, I live in a more civilised society than the one
you
> inhabit.
Incidentally, I live there too and I am FOR death penalty for the very same
reason this guy has presented. We live in a civilized society. You live in a
make believe liberal uncivilized society where the rights of criminals are
sacred and the rights of victims don't even deserve a scant attention. - f
Dennis Tetreault
issue with septic tanks that should be discussed? :-)
Yeah, I understand your concern of clouds on the horizon, but please
note, the cause of those dark clouds are NOT from the Government
(AG/Justice Dept). Those are the result of killers (terrorists,
rapists, murderers, paedophiles, right-wing and left-wing lunatics)
committing horrendous crimes for their own, selfish reasons.
And once you put the bastard in the ground, usually the only remaining
threat is from their "martyrdom".
I share your concern. In time of peace it's a dangerous step by the
Gov. But this is a time of War, and it's a step that need be taken.
A Planet Visitor
"Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c1c6f25$0$15112$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> It's blue, although there are a few dark clouds on the horizon. I'm
> fortunate enough to live in a country where the Septics are few, and their
> problems far away...
>
your toilet waste?
And you work very hard to insure those problems never
enter YOUR fair land. Do not open this door, my friend,
with jingoist praise of a perfect land. There are some
very true facts in our world. And one of those facts is
that Canada, the U.S., Russia and Australia, are perhaps
the only large countries that could easily absorb a DOUBLING
of population, and still prosper. I see no great barriers
erected to immigration in three of those countries. I see
no effort on the part of Australia to accept this fact (perhaps
because of the closed thinking of the happy-go-lucky
'lawn-bowling' New Zealander, who is quite happy in his
neat little world and wishes the rest of us would simply go
away). Perhaps the reason, there are few skeptics in your
land is because you keep barring them from entering.
PV
PS - I am in a foul mood this morning. Damn Japanese
workmanship. My brand-new $3000 HDTV clicks power
off and immediately back on about once every half-hour.
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9vi32p$rk2$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
> (I hope my friend PV, the compassionate retentionist that always denies the
> brutalization-effect of the DP, may read this the original post from Mike.
> Seldom I read a so good characterization of the purpose and motive of the
> US-DP, including the WANTED torturing aspect, that aPV permanently claims to
> be non-existent.)
>
the typical retentionist. What a farce you'd hope to
perpetrate here. Perhaps I should hold joe1orbit
up as the typical abolitionist?
A further point is that most abolitionists DO feel
more empathy toward the murderer then the victim.
Certainly there have been abolitionists here who have
clearly left the impression that they feel 'the victim is
dead, they do not count.' And I'm CERTAIN that
you feel that way. Not that you don't express
feelings for the victim, but simply that they no
longer matter in the 'equation' because they are
dead.
PV
<rest clipped>
Richard Jackson
> (I hope my friend PV, the compassionate retentionist that always denies the
> brutalization-effect of the DP, may read this the original post from Mike.
> Seldom I read a so good characterization of the purpose and motive of the
> US-DP, including the WANTED torturing aspect, that aPV permanently claims to
> be non-existent.)
Because it fits your perception of what the death penalty is in the
US, you attempt to apply this idea to all retentionists, Jürgen. Not
only is that way too simplistic, it is not reality. Retentionists,
like abolitionists, have several reasons for supporting the death
penalty. Mike's view is one reason, but not the only one.
>
>
> Mike schrieb in Nachricht ...
> >I see people trying to say "it's not a deterrent" or 'it's not going to
> >solve anything' and all this other lily-livered bullshit. Lets establish
> why
> >there is a death penalty.
> > When some human piece of shit abducts, rapes, tortures, or just cold
> >bloodedly kills a person because it is to their convenience, ie to silence
> a
> >witness, or just so they can drive the victim;'s car around for a day or
> >two- WHATEVER. These people do not deserve any rights. The only reason
> they
> >are guaranteed rights under the US constitution, is on the possible chance
> >that they did not do the crime. Once it is certain that they are murderers,
> >they have nothing coming. Please, don;'t address this part of it, this is
> >only my opinion, I know you can try to make this part the entire subject
> of
> >this post , but it isn't the point I am trying to make- so don't address
> >this part.
>
> This is much more than your opinion. This is living practice in view of
> DR-inmates in the US.
Well, we know how objective those guys are, don't we?
The appeals merely are safeguards for the DP-system
> itself and all the persons partitioning in the death-sentence (DS),
> safeguards for to keep clear the conscience of anyone concerned with a
> death-sentence or execution. The confirmation of the DS by as many instances
> as possible allows the single individual to pass the buck of his own
> responsibility to "society", i.e. to a mass of affirmators to his individual
> part in the decision to kill a human.
Of course, they could also be there to ensure we do not execute anyone
except someone who is guilty. Of course, that idea would not fit your
agenda either, would it Jürgen?
>
> The reasoning for this admittedly provocating statement above: Whether any
> appeal is sucessful or not depends not anyway upon the mere existence of the
> appeal but upon the convict's DEFENSE and their qualification. These now are
> NOT a concern of the appeal but of PRIVATE persons. Thus, the appeal itself
> and what in it's frame is provided AUTOMATICALLY, by the JUSTICE SYSTEM
> ITSELF, is not ANYWAY aiming a commutation of the sentence or even an
> exoneration.
There are two different issues you mix here, Jürgen. Appeals are
NEVER aimed at providing a commutation for a correct finding. If the
sentence is commutted to a lesser sentence, it is because the original
finding was found to be incorrect for one legal reason or another, and
a lesser finding put in its place by the court or at retrial.
>The appeal WANTS to confirm the DS in the very first place, and
> a reasonable defender is a DISTURBING factor in this the appeals-process.
That is what an appeal does. It either confirms the legal correctness
of a verdict or does not. If an appeal shows a problem, the verdict
can be overthrown, and a whole new trial scheduled as if the first
trial never occurred.
Mike isn't playing with a full deck, perhaps, Jürgen. His reasoning
IS one of the reasons we DO have courts, and an extensive review of
all capital murder trials. I make no apologies for him, but then some
of your response isn't up to your best either.
--
Richard Jackson
Richard Jackson
Mike, I am a retentionists, but has anyone ever told you you were a dimwit?
--
Richard Jackson
Mike
Mike
websites(ogrish.com) they have all these little movies of killings. Well, I
saw one there with this gunman had a women out on a city street, with a
revolver to her head, and he was surrounded by police. I think it was in
South America someplace. The woman was absolutely terrorized and terrified-
she was crying, and looked like she was about to collapse with fear. This
fucking animal was dragging her around by the hair, with his handgun pushed
up against her neck or jaw. Suddenly a single rifle bullet from a sniper
blew this fucking guy away, and the woman was instantly freed from her
torment. I have to say, almost against my better judgment, that I felt more
justice was issued on that street in one second, than most superior
courtrooms mete out in a decade. Everyone who saw it learned something, and
many people gained a new respect, or esteem, or whatever, for the police.
Granted, it could have gone very wrong, but luckily it didn't, and I can't
think of anything in my life that I ever saw that was as satisfying, as
seeing a would be murderer dealt what he had coming, right in public, and
caught on film or everyone to see, always. The guy got what he deserved,
period. That is what the death penalty is about- deterrence, and everything
else is incidental, and secondary, and superfluous. this woman may have
nightmares, but she will never have to fear this man again.He got what he
deserved, and I am glad of it- an so is most people, an that is what and why
there is capital punishment. Have a nice day. Mike.
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:9vi32p$rk2$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> PS - I am in a foul mood this morning. Damn Japanese
> workmanship. My brand-new $3000 HDTV clicks power
> off and immediately back on about once every half-hour.
Reviewing the weekend's posts, this doesn't surprise me. You seem to
well and truly have a good grump going, there.
As concerns your TV, I'm more than happy with the $5 17" thing that I
purchased at a car boot sale. If I'm going to spend lots of money on
something like a TV, I'll save my pennies for an LCD projector to attach
my VCR to. That way, you're not faced with this large, rectangular
piece of glass every time you walk into the living room.
Send the bugger back and get a replacement unit. You probably got a
"Friday car."
Mr Q. Z. D. ((o))
---- ((O))
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"My parents always told me I could be what I wanted to be.
So I became a complete bastard."
Exador
"Dennis Tetreault" <den...@ma.ultranet.com> wrote in message
news:3c1cb3c6...@news.ma.ultranet.com...
> "Septics are few"? Did you mis-spell skeptics, or is there an
> issue with septic tanks that should be discussed? :-)
No, I didn't misspell. Think rhyming slang, Septic tank rhymes with .... :).
Don't worry, it's not personal, just an old Australianism.
Exador
any way of stopping you. :)
--
Cheers,
Craig
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:jz7T7.120985$Ga5.18...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Exador
news:9vi9q5$fff9o$1...@ID-113495.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c1c2778$0$15116$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > Thanks for your honesty. Most proponents try and justify the death
penalty
> > on some imagined rational grounds, but I suspect your rant is closer to
> the
> > real reason. Thankfully, I live in a more civilised society than the one
> you
> > inhabit.
>
> Incidentally, I live there too and I am FOR death penalty for the very
same
> reason this guy has presented.
No doubt you would be FOR sinking the boats of refugees before they reach
Australia too. After all, they might be really cunning terrorists bent on
crashing their boat into the Opera House.
>We live in a civilized society. You live in a
> make believe liberal uncivilized society where the rights of criminals are
> sacred and the rights of victims don't even deserve a scant attention. - f
Not true. Once an offence has been committed the victim's "rights" have
already been violated. This doesn't provide any justification for the State
to then compound the ofense by violating the "rights" of the offender. Are
you suggesting that "victim's rights" include retribution? I don't recall
seeing this written anywhere except the old testament, and that was
allegorical. Do byou also think that plague and pestilence are good things
and hence medical research should be abandoned? I for one have no desire to
live in a pre-industrialized society or subscribe to their barbaric "rules".
BTW, I don't know which country you live in, but it's not Australia. Your
X-trace seems to suggest Germany, although this may be spoofed. Which sewer
DID you crawl out of?
--
Cheers,
Craig
>
Exador
"victims' rights". No such rights exist, as the dead have no rights;ask any
music or book publisher. This goes to the retribution argument, which is a
prime reason for the death penalty in the US. In China, pure economics hold
sway, in Singapore, likewise. Other countries have differing reasi\ons for
their implementation of the death penalty, but they all come back to one or
the other of those basic reasons in the final analysis. It is hypocritical
in the extreme to try to argue otherwise.
--
Cheers,
Craig
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:YG7T7.121014$Ga5.18...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Jürgen
Mike schrieb in Nachricht
<21bT7.274530$ez.38...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>...
>Let me give you an example. On one of those awful "faces of death" type
>websites(ogrish.com) they have all these little movies of killings. Well,
I
>saw one there with this gunman had a women out on a city street, with a
>revolver to her head, and he was surrounded by police. I think it was in
>South America someplace. The woman was absolutely terrorized and terrified-
>she was crying, and looked like she was about to collapse with fear. This
>fucking animal was dragging her around by the hair, with his handgun
pushed
>up against her neck or jaw. Suddenly a single rifle bullet from a
sniper
>blew this fucking guy away, and the woman was instantly freed from her
>torment. I have to say, almost against my better judgment, that I felt more
>justice was issued on that street in one second, than most superior
>courtrooms mete out in a decade. Everyone who saw it learned something,
and
>many people gained a new respect, or esteem, or whatever, for the police.
Whole the incident's moral background goes unchallenged. The police fulfills
an absolutely necessary task in any society and in view of this killing out
of a clearly life-threatening situation not one serious (wo)man will object
to this act of defense anyway. However, despite of that I quite well had
pulled the trigger in the place of the PO myself I neither had interpreted
my act as a fulfillment of justice nor I think the PO did so.
>Granted, it could have gone very wrong, but luckily it didn't, and I can't
>think of anything in my life that I ever saw that was as satisfying, as
>seeing a would be murderer dealt what he had coming, right in public, and
>caught on film or everyone to see, always. The guy got what he deserved,
>period. That is what the death penalty is about- deterrence, and everything
>else is incidental, and secondary, and superfluous.
The incident described by you has nothing to do with the DP at all. This
killing out of timely pressure and imminent, concrete threat is totally
different from the killing of a prisoner after more than ten years of
imprisonment. The first can be totally justified by the woman's threatened
life and her fear, you need no deterrence and no revenge, the mere situation
demands for an appropriate measure to stop the hostage-taking.
The DP however can not be justified by any concrete and imminent threat. As
the situation is, when any execution is at stake the condemned already has
served a prison term quite comparable to the TOTAL penalty of other
offenders having killed a victim, too, but having received a lesser penalty
than death.
this woman may have
>nightmares, but she will never have to fear this man again.
The protection of society should be a common aim of all, regardless of their
stance to the DP. Thus, I as an abolitionist am the very first that wants to
see dangerous people kept incapacitated. I would like to see much better
effords and controls regarding paroles, and should remain doubts in the
depth of any rehab then the guy has to stay in prison, simply. You wrote: "I
do not want to rehabilitate them" while actually MOST of the criminals ARE
released after serving their time. Now if you don't like rehabilitating
effords either you'd want mass-executions Chinese-style or the big lot of
criminals will be freed after a prison term explicitely not emphasizing on
rehab but rather on retribution. I think neither the first nor the latter
will do a favor to any society.
He got what he
>deserved, and I am glad of it- an so is most people, an that is what and
why
>there is capital punishment.
Hmmmmm...you are mixing up the "deserves"-argument with "continuing threat",
but this two have nothing to do each with the other first hand. The
criminals really imagining a continuing threat even after a decade on
death-row - a time fit to make most humans accept their restricted life in
prison - are very few IMHO. Should you have kept an open mind then look at
some of the less spectacular cases of executions and try to judge yourself,
note, always in comparizon to other, similar offenders/crimes, whether you
find a plausible reason for any PARTICULAR continuing threat or any
PARTICULAR reasons for a SPECIAL weight of "This one deserves it" than in
all the cases having ended up with lesser sentences.
Could I recognize in view of ANY executed the particular continuing threat I
would shut up instantly. But at the moment the mere guilt is enough for to
kill even without any serious consideration of mercy while other offenders
for similar guilt are allowed to hope I can not see the DP as anything other
than a human sacrifice for to present officials' 'tough on crime' attitudes
to a mass willingly taking the bait, while the overwhelming number of
equally guilty offenders are treated in a much more humane way.
Have a nice day. Mike.
Well, U2.
Sincerely
Juergen
<old snipped>
Dennis Tetreault
<mister...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>"Dennis Tetreault" <den...@ma.ultranet.com> wrote in message
>news:3c1cb3c6...@news.ma.ultranet.com...
>> "Septics are few"? Did you mis-spell skeptics, or is there an
>> issue with septic tanks that should be discussed? :-)
>
>No, I didn't misspell. Think rhyming slang, Septic tank rhymes with .... :).
Something Yank??
>Don't worry, it's not personal, just an old Australianism.
>
No worries at all. I'm still planning tovisit Australia within the
next few years. I hear it is an amazing land, filled with laughter,
tasty ales, and of course, amazingly beautiful women.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>> (I hope my friend PV, the compassionate retentionist that always denies
the
>> brutalization-effect of the DP, may read this the original post from
Mike.
>> Seldom I read a so good characterization of the purpose and motive of the
>> US-DP, including the WANTED torturing aspect, that aPV permanently claims
to
>> be non-existent.)
>>
>You idiot -- you would hold 'mike' up as an example of
>the typical retentionist.
Uuuh...let's see: Vivacious, The Holy Man, Mr. Tetreault and Vladimir belong
to your current company, too. And there had been lots over lots more of this
style, as David Lentz, Siegesgewiß, Byker (that's a good one) or Wes Loewe,
for only to mention afew out of my mind.
You simply ARE not the typical retentionist.
What a farce you'd hope to
>perpetrate here. Perhaps I should hold joe1orbit
>up as the typical abolitionist?
I genuinely was and am unsure whether Joe1Orbit was/is an abolitionist at
all. Anytimes reading his posts I couldn't suppress the suspicion that he
was writing for the retentionist side by ridiculing the abolitionists.
Furthermore he's long gone, Sir.
>
>A further point is that most abolitionists DO feel
>more empathy toward the murderer then the victim.
I dunno, Sir, what exactly you would expect from me and other abolitionists.
I am discussing the DEATH PENALTY as the REACTION to MURDER and not murder
itself. Murder is inexcusable, indisputable and irreversible, what not means
that no mitigant circumstances can lower the subjective guilt, of course (->
Culpability). And now? Should I now write as extensively about single deeds
of single individuals, and odes to victims unknown to me and dead since at
least one decade as I write anti-DP?
I tell you what, Sir. I see you retentionists often put forward this
laments, but most strangely EXCLUSIVELY in DEATH-PENALTY-CASES. All the
other victims of offenders sentenced to prison are mostly NOT EVEN
MENTIONED, Sir. Come on and tell me in what way an execution "honors" the
victim. And if you do so then explain how comes that a tiny percentage of
murder-victims "deserve" to be "honored" by the execution of their murderer
and the most overwhelming fraction not.
If anyone is dead, than we have to let him go after a certain time. NOT that
we should forget him, but once we have to deal with the fact that he is
dead. Otherwise NOT ONE human being were able to continue his life after
losing a loved one, for whatever reason. Thus, were I to lament today about
a murder victim in 1985, any victim even entirely unknown to me, then there
were ONE SINGLE motive for this my moaning: A cry for revenge. Even more: A
cry for revenge without ANY personal involvement.
I'm in deep regret for ANY human being frauded his pursuit of happiness in
secularity, for this you can be sure. But do not expect from me the joining
in in the retentionist whining about a victim for absolutely no other reason
than to cover and to justify their hatred. Or would you lament equally for
the victim of a car accident 15 years later?
>Certainly there have been abolitionists here who have
>clearly left the impression that they feel 'the victim is
>dead, they do not count.' And I'm CERTAIN that
>you feel that way. Not that you don't express
>feelings for the victim, but simply that they no
>longer matter in the 'equation' because they are
>dead.
>
You can be certain that I can not bring back any victim. That is true, so
far. And it is a consequence thereof that whatever I or anyone might do the
alternative is
-a dead victim and an imprisoned offender or
-a dead victim and a dead offender.
Thus, I dislike the term "equation" totally in regard to the topic DP. It is
misleading and inappropriate, not only in the means mentioned above. I
refuse to set humans into an equation of death, Sir. And furthermore I see
you swiftly eradiating the offender's innocent related from your equation
while quite well introducing the victim's related. You are making your
"equation of death" match your purposes, uncomfortable factors you are
excluding nonchalantly.
Juergen
Mike
smashed out of the river of life, the way he was. He did not deserve a long
pre-execution rigmarole, with visiting, and with every possible comfort and
accommodation made to him before being painlessly and apologetically put to
sleep- he deserved to be splattered in public,the way he was, and if people
insist on considering deterrence, and that kind of thing, well, maybe some
other asshole will realize it is not good to go out like that, and it is
not good to put your own loved ones through the misery and shame of a public
execution of a family member. Maybe some would be killer MIGHJT think
to himself, "I don't want to make my mother go through what that man's
mother must be going through. Maybe. I don't know, but if there was a
special kind of capital punishment for serial killers,. and special
penalties for members of the cri,minal's household, I would bet that people
like Joel Rifkin would reconsider being a serial killer, and I would bet
some serial killers would be willing to consider terminating their killing
spree. Pleasedon't rebut this by saying "They can't stop' because at least
some of them can. Mike.news:9vl43f$bo0$06$1...@news.t-online.com...
JIGSAW1695
From: den...@ma.ultranet.com (Dennis Tetreault)
Date: 12/17/01 10:50 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <3c1e1270....@news.ma.ultranet.com>
Something Yank??
==============================
Q: What do they call and amazingly beautiful woman in Australia.
A: An American tourist.
(sorry, the opportunity was to good to let pass)
John Rennie
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011217111433...@mb-fj.aol.com...
Most female American tourists look like Billie Jean King!
A Planet Visitor
"Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c1dcce3$0$17880$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Identify any sentence that resurrects a murder victim
> and hence restores
> "victims' rights"
That's ridiculous, it is a given that we cannot reverse
TIME. The rape victim cannot be restored whole again.
She will ALWAYS be a rape victim. Sentencing the
rapist to a penalty does NOT restore the rape victim.
And if the application of the SAME penalty as the CRIME,
could REVERSE the crime itself, you would see EVERY
penalty for the crime of rape, be the rape of the rapist
himself. The use of the DP is not to REVERSE the
effects of the murder, it is to JUDGE the effects of
the murder.
> No such rights exist, as the dead have no rights;ask any
> music or book publisher.
There you have it, folks. The sensitive abolitionist
proclaims that 'victims' rights' do not exist. What's
done is done, so why not just politely 'ask' the murderer
to not do it again, and let him go about his murders.
IDIOT!!!!!!!
Do you think all the 'rights' belong to the murderers?
You believe that the victim no longer fits into the
'equation,' of having 'rights.' That makes at least four
sensitive abolitionists now, that I can remember hold
that view. Desmond, Ivan, Jürgen, and now Exador.
And some claim the retentionist is 'cold.' My God...
what kind of a world is it, when we see victims as
simply 'pieces of dead ham'? How far have we
strayed from rational thought, when we give more
value to the murderer then to the victim? How can
we EVER think we can convict any murderer, when
we say the victim has no further voice? How can
we look ourselves in the mirror, and say 'Dead victims
have no rights.'?
> This goes to the retribution argument, which is a
> prime reason for the death penalty in the US. In China,
> pure economics hold
> sway, in Singapore, likewise. Other countries have
> differing reasi\ons for
> their implementation of the death penalty, but they all
> come back to one or
> the other of those basic reasons in the final analysis.
> It is hypocritical
> in the extreme to try to argue otherwise.
>
Not because it's hypocritical of course,
but because it's futile to argue with a zealot.
'Victims have no rights'.... cheee....
PV
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:H2pT7.19305$4e3.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
that overbite problem you people have? :-)
PV
John Rennie
John Rennie
>
> "Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c1dcce3$0$17880$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > Identify any sentence that resurrects a murder victim
> > and hence restores
> > "victims' rights"
>
> That's ridiculous, it is a given that we cannot reverse
> TIME. The rape victim cannot be restored whole again.
> She will ALWAYS be a rape victim. Sentencing the
> rapist to a penalty does NOT restore the rape victim.
> And if the application of the SAME penalty as the CRIME,
> could REVERSE the crime itself, you would see EVERY
> penalty for the crime of rape, be the rape of the rapist
> himself. The use of the DP is not to REVERSE the
> effects of the murder, it is to JUDGE the effects of
> the murder.
>
> > No such rights exist, as the dead have no rights;ask any
> > music or book publisher.
>
> There you have it, folks. The sensitive abolitionist
> proclaims that 'victims' rights' do not exist.
You can huff and you can puff but you cannot blow
this particular house down. It isn't a question of
sensitivity just plain old logic.
Peter Morris
>
> A further point is that most abolitionists DO feel
> more empathy toward the murderer then the victim.
you disgust me
--
______________________________
/____________________________(_)
| ___________________________ email to
| | |________________________(_) Peter_Morris_1
| |/__________________________ at Hotmail dot com
|____________________________(_)
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:mHqT7.24392$pU3.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
of sensitivity. One either has it toward the recognition
of the victim, and the 'rights' that cannot be taken away
from them by a murderer... or one does not.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:rEqT7.24376$pU3.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message news:9vlgt1$jgb$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:YG7T7.121014$Ga5.18...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> >
> > A further point is that most abolitionists DO feel
> > more empathy toward the murderer then the victim.
>
>
> you disgust me
>
>
why you 'despise' me as well. You being one of those
abolitionists, it must hurt when someone points it out.
If it so offends you then modify it to 'many abolitionists,'
I really don't care. That will still not extract you from
the abolitionists expressing such empathy.
Quite simply your McGinn argument with the drug
dealer analogy, showed more empathy toward
the murderer than the victim. And your words that
''It has to be said four out of seven of the victims
of these murders were criminals," certainly shows
more empathy toward the murderers then the victims
(after all -- it has to be said).
Shall we begin counting insults from scratch?
Let's start with yours to me. That's 1.
PV
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
den...@ma.ultranet.com (Dennis Tetreault) wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 18:40:18 +1000, "Exador"
> <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >"Dennis Tetreault" <den...@ma.ultranet.com> wrote in message
> >news:3c1cb3c6...@news.ma.ultranet.com...
> >> "Septics are few"? Did you mis-spell skeptics, or is there an
> >> issue with septic tanks that should be discussed? :-)
> >
> >No, I didn't misspell. Think rhyming slang, Septic tank rhymes with ....
> >:).
>
> Something Yank??
Just rhyming slang.
Septic Tank - Yank.
It can get a little confusing:
Crafty Sherman - Wank.
Actually:
Crafty Sherman (Tank) - Wank.
> >Don't worry, it's not personal, just an old Australianism.
> >
>
> No worries at all. I'm still planning tovisit Australia within the
> next few years. I hear it is an amazing land, filled with laughter,
> tasty ales, and of course, amazingly beautiful women.
As long as you're not black, Asian or Arabic you should make out just
fine. Australians are an _extremely_ bigoted mob.
A Planet Visitor
deciphering your uncommonly poor English. I will
only respond to those points where you've made
yourself somewhat clear. Nor will I pay any attention
to your rants and rages, except to snipe at them. I
haven't seen many that DO like to talk to you,
Jürgen... both abolitionists and retentionist,
because you've seriously lost a few of your marbles
lately.
PV
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9vl4lk$8bb$05$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
>
> >A further point is that most abolitionists DO feel
> >more empathy toward the murderer then the victim.
>
> I dunno, Sir, what exactly you would expect from me and
> other abolitionists.
> I am discussing the DEATH PENALTY as the REACTION
> to MURDER and not murder
> itself.
But that's absurd. It's like discussing a painting without
discussing the techniques of the artist. I can name a
good hundred simple analogies to demonstrate that
if one only examines the 'effect' without also examining
the 'cause,' one can determine NOTHING.
>
> If anyone is dead, than we have to let him go after a certain time. NOT that
> we should forget him, but once we have to deal with the fact that he is
> dead. Otherwise NOT ONE human being were able to continue his life after
> losing a loved one, for whatever reason. Thus, were I to lament today about
> a murder victim in 1985, any victim even entirely unknown to me, then there
> were ONE SINGLE motive for this my moaning: A cry for revenge.
> Even more: A
> cry for revenge without ANY personal involvement.
>
It's a cry for justice, sport. And it's a cry for our own
morality to show through. And it's a cry for 'public safety.'
And don't ever forget it.
> I'm in deep regret for ANY human being frauded his pursuit of happiness in
> secularity, for this you can be sure. But do not expect from me the joining
> in in the retentionist whining about a victim for absolutely no other reason
> than to cover and to justify their hatred. Or would you lament equally for
> the victim of a car accident 15 years later?
>
Don't give me that crap... you're not in any deep regret
at all... it's all a facade. You're in deep regret for the
MURDERER, my friend. And apparently when WE think
of the victim, YOU would refer to it as 'whining.' So I
guess you feel we should just stop 'whining' about that
good-for-nothing victim, dead all those years. And
start concentrating on that pure-of-heart murderer.
> >Certainly there have been abolitionists here who have
> >clearly left the impression that they feel 'the victim is
> >dead, they do not count.' And I'm CERTAIN that
> >you feel that way. Not that you don't express
> >feelings for the victim, but simply that they no
> >longer matter in the 'equation' because they are
> >dead.
> >
>
> You can be certain that I can not bring back any victim.
> That is true, so far.
Ummmm... you expect that to CHANGE in the future?
Are we into resurrecting the dead now?
> Thus, I dislike the term "equation" totally in regard to the topic DP.
It doesn't matter what you dislike. You've obviously
eliminated the VICTIM from any consideration in the
EQUATION which determines the appropriate use of
the DP.
PV
>
> Juergen
enigmacat
something sexual---maybe you Aussies cause some pain when performing a
certain aspect of the erotic exercise.
But don't quote me on that one, John or anyone else.
sincerely,
jane
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
(enigmacat) wrote:
> i'm not sure what this overbite thing means either, unless is
> something sexual---maybe you Aussies cause some pain when performing a
> certain aspect of the erotic exercise.
>
> But don't quote me on that one, John or anyone else.
John's actually a Pom.
A Planet Visitor
"enigmacat" <nothg...@wwdc.com> wrote in message news:3c1e8070...@news.lon.imag.net...
> i'm not sure what this overbite thing means either, unless is
> something sexual---maybe you Aussies cause some pain when performing a
> certain aspect of the erotic exercise.
>
often ascribed to the British. A deep overbite.
It is similar to referring to an American as a
'redneck,' and I'm sorry I brought it up, but it
IS a more than uncommon facial trait.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message news:diablo-E9BEC3....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> In article <3c1e8070...@news.lon.imag.net>, nothg...@wwdc.com
> (enigmacat) wrote:
>
> > i'm not sure what this overbite thing means either, unless is
> > something sexual---maybe you Aussies cause some pain when performing a
> > certain aspect of the erotic exercise.
> >
> > But don't quote me on that one, John or anyone else.
>
> John's actually a Pom.
>
PV
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:diablo-E9BEC3....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > In article <3c1e8070...@news.lon.imag.net>, nothg...@wwdc.com
> > (enigmacat) wrote:
> >
> > > i'm not sure what this overbite thing means either, unless is
> > > something sexual---maybe you Aussies cause some pain when performing
> > > a
> > > certain aspect of the erotic exercise.
> > >
> > > But don't quote me on that one, John or anyone else.
> >
> > John's actually a Pom.
> >
> Pom's have overbite???
You said as much in you next article in this thread (minus the
greengrocer's apostrophe, though >;-) ).
For your elucidation, from the Concise Oxford:
pom n. 1 a Pomeranian dog. 2 Austral. & NZ sl. offens. = POMMY (abbr.)
pommy n. (also pommie) (pl. -ies) Austral. & NZ sl. offens. a British
person, esp. a recent immigrant. [20th c.: orig. uncert.]
It's not generally considered offensive to most, BTW. Many Brit
immigrants of my acquaintance came over as "£10 Poms" and are quite
happy to refer to themselves as such.
Oz newspapers often refer to the English cricket team as "the Poms."
John Rennie
I'm still genuinely puzzled. I've not in my 67 years
heard the allegation cum insult before. In all
that time I have met two people who suffered
from 'overbite' and one of them was a German.
Whereas I have met many female American
tourists who are Billie Jean King look-a-likes.
Peter Morris
> I've already said that I will no longer waste my time
> deciphering your uncommonly poor English.
Oh? And how well do you speak Jurgen's native tongue, then?
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message news:9vnqgn$p0e$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:tBuT7.134287$Ga5.19...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > I've already said that I will no longer waste my time
> > deciphering your uncommonly poor English.
>
>
> Oh? And how well do you speak Jurgen's native tongue, then?
>
that is quite beside the point, and you know it. If
he is UNABLE to formulate his thought process in
ENGLISH, and instead expects others having English
as a mother-tongue to decipher those thoughts FOR
HIM, then he should not attempt to demand that we
accept this shortcoming. I would certainly not post
in German. He should certainly not post in English.
There is no caveat that demands we post in English
here... he should read the English and post in German,
if he lacks the capacity to formulate his thought
process in English. Why should WE be burdened
with HIS shortcomings? And, as I write this, I see
a very subtle connection to the very argument we
often have here... Clearly, WE are not responsible
for the actions of others. WE cannot be held libel
for THEIR shortcomings in life, when they murder.
It is not our job to try and UNDERSTAND them, to
the point we allow them to CONTINUE such
shortcomings. Unless we gain SOMETHING which
would help us in the FUTURE by so doing. .
It is our job to DEMAND that they conform to the
standards WE set. This is necessarily what we
should demand from Jürgen. Of course, IMHO.
I see nothing of recognizable substance when trying
to work through the morass of Jürgen's lack of
English communication skills. And I fail to see
how anyone can 'apologize' for him, with a claim
that the other doesn't speak HIS language well. I
am CERTAIN that I speak better Italian and French
then he does, but I do not try to communicate here
in THOSE languages
Whether others agree with that or not, I simply
will not stop remarking on the fact that Jürgen
does not have the necessary level of ability in the
English language to hold us responsible to decipher
his English. I will make no excuses for HIM, nor
for murderers.
PV
>
>
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
<flames amputated>
I will make no excuses for HIM, nor
>for murderers.
>
I surely do not need an excuse from you for my English, Sir. You had been
free to read or to ignore my posts, from 03-14-00 on.
J.
Peter Morris
>
> "Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message
news:9vnqgn$p0e$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
> >
> > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> > news:tBuT7.134287$Ga5.19...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > I've already said that I will no longer waste my time
> > > deciphering your uncommonly poor English.
> >
> >
> > Oh? And how well do you speak Jurgen's native tongue, then?
> >
> Almost certainly, better than he speaks English. But
> that is quite beside the point, and you know it.
No it isnt. You have chosen to attack him PERSONALLY
for his command of English. If you had simply stated "I can't
understand you" then you might have a point, but this was a
personal attack on Jurgen less than perfect liguistic skills.
You do not have the right to attack others for "exceptionally poor"
language skills, unless you are able to demonstrate better ones.
This has nothing to do with the death penalty debate, its about your
own personal rudeness.
______________________________
/____________________________(_)
| ___________________________ email to
| | |________________________(_) Peter_Morris_1
| |/__________________________ at Hotmail dot com
|____________________________(_)
> If
Jürgen
Mike schrieb in Nachricht
<9IoT7.276406$ez.38...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>...
>My point in that post was, this gunman deserved to die. He deserved to be
>smashed out of the river of life, the way he was. He did not deserve a long
>pre-execution rigmarole, with visiting, and with every possible comfort and
>accommodation made to him before being painlessly and apologetically put
>to sleep-
sorry to interrupt here, but is that your impression about imprisonment? The
loss of Freedom is by itself an extreme harsh penalty and a prison term is
seen as appropriate for ALL crimes less than murder and even for most
murders/murderers, too.
But Death-Row (DR) - Supermax, or Solitary Confinement - is much more than
simple imprisonment. This kind of treatment of a human being comes close to
a reductio ad absurdum, cynically spoken. What is happening on DR OFFICIALLY
for years over years is beyond of any humanity, and the attempts to punish
even more and more by further restrictions of the minimalistic "lifestyle"
of any DR-inmate are numerous. Just recently TX tried to prevent the option
to visit a DR-inmate as a non-related.
And: Aside from my doubts in LI as more painless than a firing squad, the
mortal dread will always remain, and the blunt message to a human about his
scheduled death is psychologically cruel. Well...yes, the murderer had been
cruel himself once, but this cruelty of a single one should be not used as a
reason for to inflict similarly cruel penalties, IMHO.
he deserved to be splattered in public,the way he was, and if people
>insist on considering deterrence, and that kind of thing, well, maybe some
>other asshole will realize it is not good to go out like that, and it is
>not good to put your own loved ones through the misery and shame of a
public
>execution of a family member. Maybe some would be killer MIGHJT think
>to himself, "I don't want to make my mother go through what that man's
>mother must be going through. Maybe.
Well, Mike, I see two antagonist messages in the DP:
(1) "Oh, seeing how cruel this murderer is punished I should think at least
twice before committing murder myself"; vs
(2) "The state himself kills for to solve a problem. Thus, problems may be
solved by killing."
(1) were the argumentation with a deterrent while (2) were the argumentation
with the DP as lowering the most desired respect for the life within society
in general.
I - moderately spoken - am tending to see (1) and (2) for approximatedly in
balance, proof for the actual extent of effect (1) and (2) is not possible,
we simply can't observate two equal societies one with and the other without
the DP.
The working out of abolitionist societies with much lower murder rates than
most retentionist however at least shows that deterrence plays not a
significant, i.e. provable part.
To deterrence in general, I doubt in any worth mentioning number of
murderers THINKING about the consequences of their acts at all. There are
afew intelligent, calculating murderers, these will try to stage their
crimes for not getting caught, neither they want to be executed nor they
want to disappear behind the bars for 20++ years, and there are a share of
silly offenders that have not the skills at all to fancy DR and DP.
Furthermore there are alot of emotional murders, committed in rage, jealousy
or despair, or murders committed under reduced awareness (->drugs, alcohol).
A most disturbing alternative are murders about sexually perverted
offenders, caused by damaged instincts.
It seems very unlikely to me that all this cathegories will come to a
rational conclusion to finally abandon their idea to kill for that they
could be sentenced to death.
I don't know, but if there was a
>special kind of capital punishment for serial killers,. and special
>penalties for members of the cri,minal's household, I would bet that
people
>like Joel Rifkin would reconsider being a serial killer, and I would bet
>some serial killers would be willing to consider terminating their killing
>spree. Pleasedon't rebut this by saying "They can't stop' because at least
>some of them can. Mike.
Quite in contrary, I appreciate this your perception wholeheartly. The
option of a human's change despite any former guilt is in my view a most
fascinating and hopeful perspective of human spirit. That a single
individual in his/her entity can perform such carries the hope and
expectance that the same once might be possible for the large scale,
mankind, too.
That is visionary, to say the least, and in the state mankind is just today
it may seem to be a total illusion, admitted. But despite the terrible
backstep at 9/11 and many other happenings in the last century I see certain
progresses of humans when viewing history and comparing the worldwide
attitudes and laws in the dark ages with how we at least THEROETICALLY want
to see us and our attitudes vs our peers contemporarily, at least in the
philosophically higher developed Western part of the world.
Back on topic after a short dreaming-phase. Now how to support, to say to
catalyze any change of a guilty individual? Well, guilt demands for a
measure, for to prevent further violent acts about the criminal and for to
make him think. I now neither believe in too lenient penalties, if the
penalty does not reflect the severity of the crime anyway the criminal will
laugh and feel society for weak, quasi for tolerating his attitudes. But nor
I believe in too harsh measures. For really to support a change of any
punished it is not appropriate to break him entirely. He has to feel:
"Society is hard to me for what I've done. But society is fair, I deserved
this for my act, and society will be fair to me in future. Thus, I am
allowed to hope for my future, depending on my own behavior my society will
not for my lifetime insist on my guilt but weigh my effords to work on
myself, too."
So weigh punishment and crime's severity, but do not demand necessarily 1:1
retribution. There are cases allowing to be clement, even to a DR-inmate.
Sincerely
Jürgen
<old snipped>
Peter Morris
>
> "Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message
news:9vlgt1$jgb$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
> >
> > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> > news:YG7T7.121014$Ga5.18...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > >
> > > A further point is that most abolitionists DO feel
> > > more empathy toward the murderer then the victim.
> >
> >
> > you disgust me
> >
> >
> I can understand that, Peter. I can understand
> why you 'despise' me as well. You being one of those
> abolitionists, it must hurt when someone points it out.
> If it so offends you then modify it to 'many abolitionists,'
to be accurate, you should alter it to 'a tiny proportion of
abolitionists'
> I really don't care. That will still not extract you from
> the abolitionists expressing such empathy.
Really? And would you like to be compared to the
Kools and Frankies? That would be just as accurate.
> Quite simply your McGinn argument with the drug
> dealer analogy, showed more empathy toward
> the murderer than the victim.
Wrong. I specifically said "no sympathy" for McGinn.
I expressed outrage at the brutal behaviour of those that
killed McGinn, but for McGinn himself there was "no sympathy"
What part of that didn't you understand?
> And your words that
> ''It has to be said four out of seven of the victims
> of these murders were criminals," certainly shows
> more empathy toward the murderers then the victims
No, it was pointing out that YOU were lying. You made the
claim that the Furman-commuted prisonners murdered "innocent"
people. You deliberately concealed the fact that they actually
murdered each other. You did this because YOU thought that
murderers murdering "innocents" sounds more dangerous than
murderers killing other murderers. Simply pointing out a lie you
told does not demonstrate any "empathy" on my part.
> Shall we begin counting insults from scratch?
> Let's start with yours to me. That's 1.
Okey dokey lets go.
"A further point is that most abolitionists DO feel
more empathy toward the murderer then the victim. "
Thats 1
" Quite simply your McGinn argument with the drug
dealer analogy, showed more empathy toward
the murderer than the victim"
Thats 2
" And your words that
''It has to be said four out of seven of the victims
of these murders were criminals," certainly shows
more empathy toward the murderers then the victims"
Thats 3
Curerent insults score PV- 3 Peter - 1
Jürgen
Peter Morris schrieb in Nachricht <9vnvv5$qfh$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk>...
Pete, thanks for your understanding that I can't provide flawless English.
Mylord PV yet understood all my thoughts expressed on AAD-P, if he wants to
flame me for lacking perfection then let him do so. I will ignore this
totally in future as I did in the past with very few exceptions. He may rest
in his ivory-tower of superiority. BTW, I surely will not comment the few
lines German performed by him once right here ;-)))))))))
So long
Juergen
Jürgen
<insults snipped>
>> I dunno, Sir, what exactly you would expect from me and
>> other abolitionists.
>> I am discussing the DEATH PENALTY as the REACTION
>> to MURDER and not murder
>> itself.
>
>But that's absurd. It's like discussing a painting without
>discussing the techniques of the artist. I can name a
>good hundred simple analogies to demonstrate that
>if one only examines the 'effect' without also examining
>the 'cause,' one can determine NOTHING.
There are TWO acts. That is first the act of an individual, the crime, and
second the JUSTICE SYSTEM'S measure for either to prevent more harm or to
demand retribution. Your analogy fails on whole the line.
>
>>
>> If anyone is dead, than we have to let him go after a certain time. NOT
that
>> we should forget him, but once we have to deal with the fact that he is
>> dead. Otherwise NOT ONE human being were able to continue his life after
>> losing a loved one, for whatever reason. Thus, were I to lament today
about
>> a murder victim in 1985, any victim even entirely unknown to me, then
there
>> were ONE SINGLE motive for this my moaning: A cry for revenge.
>> Even more: A
>> cry for revenge without ANY personal involvement.
>>
>It's a cry for justice, sport. And it's a cry for our own
>morality to show through. And it's a cry for 'public safety.'
>And don't ever forget it.
No, it is no cry for justice. Otherwise you had to execute ALL offenders
and - if SOLELY the dead victim counts - even ALL that killed incidentally,
without malice aforethought in the last consequence.
>
>> I'm in deep regret for ANY human being frauded his pursuit of happiness
in
>> secularity, for this you can be sure. But do not expect from me the
joining
>> in in the retentionist whining about a victim for absolutely no other
reason
>> than to cover and to justify their hatred. Or would you lament equally
for
>> the victim of a car accident 15 years later?
>>
>Don't give me that crap... you're not in any deep regret
>at all... it's all a facade.
Well, you know that, hmmmm??? What do you know at all about me? I presented
to you and AAD-P my considerations about the DP and very little else.
This most impudent accusation without ANY of a provable fundament requires a
little consideration in view of it's origin:
(1) You got into most severe difficulties in our argument whole the line:
(a) No answer to 'Weak defense first - switch of proof's burden second'
(b) No answer to 'Nature and purpose of the appeals'
(c) No answer to 'Limits of Self-Defense'
(d) No answer to 'Limits of "deserves"'
(e) No answer to 'Lacking considerations of Clemency'
(f) No answer to 'OBVIOUS hatred in the DP'
(g) No answer to 'Influences of society on her individuals'
(h) No answer to 'Offender's innocent related terribly punished by the DP'
(i) No answer to 'Where are your alleged improvements of the DP since ca.
'76?'
(j) No answer to 'Could it be that your DP-concept is not practicable in ANY
society, for the omnipresent human biasm?'
for to mention only a few major points. <And Please: Spare me of answering
now to the points, you had opportunity enough. Any of this points had been
elaborated and presented en detaille. No chance for any reply now to this
most simplified collection of headlines.>
(2) You got in this difficulties discussing with a FOREIGNER - what a shame.
(3) You are TOTALLY UNABLE to admit even the tiniest error or flaw.
(4) You have been coerced into considerations about single cases PROVING
your DP-Dream wrong thoroughly.
(5) You became aggressive seeing your case lost and your dream splattered.
(6) And Conclusion: Like usual in ancient times you - as your last
refugium - decided to kill the messenger after handing the bad news over to
you.
You're in deep regret for the
>MURDERER, my friend.
Yes I am. I am in deep regret for any human being that was for whatever
reasons not permitted to develop the strength, depth and solidarity
necessary for to live in harmony with his peers as it should be. And I'm in
deep regret for any society that let's herself infect with this brutality of
single misguided individuals.
And apparently when WE think
>of the victim, YOU would refer to it as 'whining.'
Yessir. Pathetically liarish whining about a dead human, long after the
natural time of burning grief is over. While the Death's Advocates are after
20 years still lamenting about a human UNKNOWN to them quite some of
victim's related already got the admirable strength even to FORGIVE the
offender the share of harm done to them personally. You are ABUSING the
situation for to feed your own hatred.
So I
>guess you feel we should just stop 'whining' about that
>good-for-nothing victim, dead all those years. And
>start concentrating on that pure-of-heart murderer.
>
I guess you should start to question your standpoint. "Murder demands for
the DP, and all lesser punishments are an undeserved and voluntary *mercy*
to the murderer", that is yours, and that is (1) *UNBEARABLE* for a modern
justice system and (2) your loophole for to explain all the silliness,
brutality, arbitrariness and - yes - DEPRAVITY of the US-DP away in a most
simplicistic manner.
<snip>
>
>> Thus, I dislike the term "equation" totally in regard to the topic DP.
>
>It doesn't matter what you dislike. You've obviously
>eliminated the VICTIM from any consideration in the
>EQUATION which determines the appropriate use of
>the DP.
As usual, the unanswerable point snipped. For your revenge you are prepared
to drive innocents into the worst mental pain.
And as usual, my advocating for a long prison term as the penalty for murder
was interpreted as a total elimination of the victim, as if I'd like to see
murderers go free.
You are fixed, Sir. Fixed in concrete. Although totally unable to reply
meaningfully to (a) to (j) = 10 points you are clutching your "equation of
death", merely slightly covered by a shiny worn moral hat.
Juergen
P.s. Flame around and spout your venon - good luck. I do not care. And
again, you can be sure of your incognito regardless of the level you might
descend to. I, for my part, will tell what I see for the truth after 21
months discussing with you. I will be honest and will not keep hidden even
nasty thoughts, may they concern you or your "Fabric". Truth is truth, and
the execution of lots over lots of humans not more dangerous or depraved
than other guilties *IS* truth.
JIGSAW1695
Date: 12/18/01 12:55 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <9vnvv5$qfh$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk>
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:uyKT7.117694$oj3.20...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message
news:9vnqgn$p0e$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
> >
> > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> > news:tBuT7.134287$Ga5.19...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > I've already said that I will no longer waste my time
> > > deciphering your uncommonly poor English.
> >
> >
> > Oh? And how well do you speak Jurgen's native tongue, then?
> >
> Almost certainly, better than he speaks English. But
> that is quite beside the point, and you know it.
No it isnt. You have chosen to attack him PERSONALLY
for his command of English. If you had simply stated "I can't
understand you" then you might have a point, but this was a
personal attack on Jurgen less than perfect liguistic skills.
You do not have the right to attack others for "exceptionally poor"
language skills, unless you are able to demonstrate better ones.
This has nothing to do with the death penalty debate, its about your
own personal rudeness.
===============================
Sorry Pete, But I have to side with PV on this one. On several occasions
Jurgen has either intitated or reponded to a message; and quite frankly, the
syntax of the sentence simply makes no sense at all. I have frequently asked
him to reword what he said. His reply was an explosive barrage of low level
insults. And worse, he never did clarify what he was trying to say.
Jurgen is obviously an intelligent person with something to say; but often
times he cannot be understood.
Jigsaw
John Rennie
I have that trouble with some of your posts. But do I insult you? Oh
well I suppose I do - forgive?
enigmacat
It makes perfect sense, as it's a known fact that the British often
have very bad teeth.
i guess none of you know me well enough to have become acquainted with
my rather warped sense of humour.
sincerely,
jane
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9vnvf8$p49$07$1...@news.t-online.com...
to comment on your rather poor comprehension of English.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message news:9vnvv5$qfh$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:uyKT7.117694$oj3.20...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message
> news:9vnqgn$p0e$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
> > >
> > > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> > > news:tBuT7.134287$Ga5.19...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> > > > I've already said that I will no longer waste my time
> > > > deciphering your uncommonly poor English.
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh? And how well do you speak Jurgen's native tongue, then?
> > >
> > Almost certainly, better than he speaks English. But
> > that is quite beside the point, and you know it.
>
> No it isnt. You have chosen to attack him PERSONALLY
> for his command of English. If you had simply stated "I can't
> understand you" then you might have a point, but this was a
> personal attack on Jurgen less than perfect liguistic skills.
> You do not have the right
Who the hell are you to tell me what my 'rights' are?
Don't be absurd, I have EVERY right.
> to attack others for "exceptionally poor"
> language skills, unless you are able to demonstrate better ones.
I do not NEED to demonstrate better ones, since we
converse here in English. Should he wish to converse
in German, or Swahili, I would have no PROBLEM with
that. Nonetheless, he has CHOSEN to converse in a
language he is not totally familiar with. That's HIS
choice. And having made that choice, he has the
responsibility to make sense in THAT language.
> This has nothing to do with the death penalty debate, its about your
> own personal rudeness.
Clearly, if you wish to muddle through Jürgen's
convoluted sentences and meaningless arguments
you may do so. And I may continue to comment
that he lacks the basic language skills necessary
to communicate effectively in the English language,
in a group which places great value on nuances
and subtle shading and meaning of words. But
you should realize that if you feel I've been rude,
then you need to examine your own personal
rudeness, since you found it necessary to pedantically
dissect my use of the phase 'ad hominem' here just
yesterday and today in another thread. Your argument
here reads rather hollow when compared with your own
obsession with that term from me. If you felt the
particular shading that I applied to that phrase was so
ESSENTIAL to the meaning of the argument, how can
you defend someone who cannot form a complete
sentence without finding it necessary for others to work
very hard at translating that sentence into understandable
English?
In fact your commentary to me in this particular thread,
has everything to do with YOU demonstrating the behavior
you've accused me of... where you claimed that I would
let NO post of yours go by without a negative comment.
Obviously, you are WRONG here, but you insist because
it is ME on the other end.
BTW - That's insult #4 from you to me just in two days.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9vo11r$22a$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
implies that I care. I don't care, as I've said, if you
post in Swahili. I will continue to point out that in
ENGLISH, you are barely comprehensible. That
doesn't speak to your INTELLIGENCE... for all I
know you may be a friggin' Einstein. It speaks to
your inability to get a POINT across in English,
without fracturing the entire structure of the language.
Sometimes I even think you simply use a translator
such as Babelfish when you post. And you well
know that I have more than adequate speaking
knowledge in German, plus can outrun you any
day of the week in Italian and French. But, that is
simply not related to the argument, which IS 'your
inability to get your point across in ENGLISH.' That
is what I'm speaking of. Even were I to speak NO
OTHER language but English, it would be IMMATERIAL
to the argument that YOU cannot get your point across
in that language. And you do your logical argument
no good, by dismissing my language abilities, nor
any claim that you may have ADDITIONAL language
skills. We are SPEAKING OF ENGLISH.
PV
> So long
>
> Juergen
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message news:9vo0dl$qi2$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:7ntT7.133550$Ga5.19...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message
> news:9vlgt1$jgb$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
> > >
> > > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> > > news:YG7T7.121014$Ga5.18...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > A further point is that most abolitionists DO feel
> > > > more empathy toward the murderer then the victim.
> > >
> > >
> > > you disgust me
> > >
> > >
> > I can understand that, Peter. I can understand
> > why you 'despise' me as well. You being one of those
> > abolitionists, it must hurt when someone points it out.
> > If it so offends you then modify it to 'many abolitionists,'
>
> to be accurate, you should alter it to 'a tiny proportion of
> abolitionists'
>
right to have an opinion?
> > I really don't care. That will still not extract you from
> > the abolitionists expressing such empathy.
>
> Really? And would you like to be compared to the
> Kools and Frankies? That would be just as accurate.
>
Insult. No fact associated just an insult.
> > Quite simply your McGinn argument with the drug
> > dealer analogy, showed more empathy toward
> > the murderer than the victim.
>
> Wrong. I specifically said "no sympathy" for McGinn.
> I expressed outrage at the brutal behaviour of those that
> killed McGinn, but for McGinn himself there was "no sympathy"
> What part of that didn't you understand?
>
Quite simply your analogy of a customer being
murdered, compared that customer to the execution
of McGinn. And your argument was that "the dead
customer is a criminal, a serial rapist, a drug dealer,
a paedophile or whatever." You then went on with
that comparison to say "Doubtless, many people
would be appalled and disgusted by the murder, but
have absolutely no sympathy for the victim. And this
is exactly the way I feel about the execution of Ricky
McGinn." Now clearly, you have claimed to have
no sympathy for the victim in your example, since
you feel exactly that way about McGinn. It can
only be assumed that you feel no sympathy for
the 'murder victim' because he was 'a bad guy.' Nor
is that the last time you've expressed a sentiment
of that sort.
> > And your words that
> > ''It has to be said four out of seven of the victims
> > of these murders were criminals," certainly shows
> > more empathy toward the murderers then the victims
>
> No, it was pointing out that YOU were lying.
How is that, Peter? I had said that there were seven
victims. That's a truth. YOU came out with the comment
above, obviously placing less value on the prisoners
than the guards, since 4 were prisoners and 3 were
guards. Now that has nothing to do with any other
argument we might have had in respect to how many
MURDERERS were involved. It bear directly on the
victims -- which were Seven in number. Do you see
the word 'victims' in your comment?
> You made the
> claim that the Furman-commuted prisonners murdered "innocent"
> people.
EVERY murder victim is INNOCENT. No one DESERVES
to be murdered. And that's a fact. Now if you disagree
with that, then your argument, of course, is that SOME DO
deserve to be murdered because they are not innocent.
> You deliberately concealed the fact that they actually
> murdered each other.
What are you talking about? They murdered OTHER
prisoners, and guards -- not each other.
> You did this because YOU thought that
> murderers murdering "innocents" sounds more dangerous than
> murderers killing other murderers. Simply pointing out a lie you
> told does not demonstrate any "empathy" on my part.
>
Your WORDS do you in, Peter. Not mine, but
YOUR words. I've cited your EXACT words, and
not out of any supposed context. You simply make
absurd accusations, with no proof whatsoever.
> > Shall we begin counting insults from scratch?
> > Let's start with yours to me. That's 1.
>
> Okey dokey lets go.
>
> "A further point is that most abolitionists DO feel
> more empathy toward the murderer then the victim. "
>
> Thats 1
FACT.
>
> " Quite simply your McGinn argument with the drug
> dealer analogy, showed more empathy toward
> the murderer than the victim"
>
> Thats 2
FACT.
> " And your words that
> ''It has to be said four out of seven of the victims
> of these murders were criminals," certainly shows
> more empathy toward the murderers then the victims"
>
BIG FACT. Do you expect to call FACTS insults now?
I get it... when I point out FACTS, they're insults. When
you point out insults, they don't count.
> Thats 3
>
> Curerent insults score PV- 3 Peter - 1
>
>
PV
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > Sorry Pete, But I have to side with PV on this one. On several
> > occasions
> > Jurgen has either intitated or reponded to a message; and quite
> > frankly,
> the
> > syntax of the sentence simply makes no sense at all. I have frequently
> asked
> > him to reword what he said. His reply was an explosive barrage of low
> level
> > insults. And worse, he never did clarify what he was trying to say.
> >
> > Jurgen is obviously an intelligent person with something to say; but
> > often
> > times he cannot be understood.
> >
> > Jigsaw
>
> I have that trouble with some of your posts. But do I insult you? Oh
> well I suppose I do - forgive?
There's something going on here, John. Notice how Jiggy's post has no
obvious typos, no mangled grammar, no misspellings and only very
slightly dubious punctuation.
I shall not rest until I get to the bottom of it. I swear on my
mother's grave.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9vof33$irt$05$1...@news.t-online.com...
Actually, Jürgen, you are improving... this was one
of your more understandable posts. :-)
PC
JIGSAW1695
Date: 12/18/01 2:52 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <l7NT7.34929$pU3.4...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>
===============================
By the power vested in me, I officially forgive you.
Yours in Foregivness
Jigsaw
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9vo2io$qbr$06$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > = PV
>
> <insults snipped>
>
> >> I dunno, Sir, what exactly you would expect from me and
> >> other abolitionists.
> >> I am discussing the DEATH PENALTY as the REACTION
> >> to MURDER and not murder
> >> itself.
> >
> >But that's absurd. It's like discussing a painting without
> >discussing the techniques of the artist. I can name a
> >good hundred simple analogies to demonstrate that
> >if one only examines the 'effect' without also examining
> >the 'cause,' one can determine NOTHING.
>
> There are TWO acts. That is first the act of an individual, the crime, and
> second the JUSTICE SYSTEM'S measure for either to prevent more
> harm or to
> demand retribution. Your analogy fails on whole the line.
>
> >
> >>
> >> If anyone is dead, than we have to let him go after a certain time. NOT
> that
> >> we should forget him, but once we have to deal with the fact that he is
> >> dead. Otherwise NOT ONE human being were able to continue his life after
> >> losing a loved one, for whatever reason. Thus, were I to lament today
> about
> >> a murder victim in 1985, any victim even entirely unknown to me, then
> there
> >> were ONE SINGLE motive for this my moaning: A cry for revenge.
> >> Even more: A
> >> cry for revenge without ANY personal involvement.
> >>
> >It's a cry for justice, sport. And it's a cry for our own
> >morality to show through. And it's a cry for 'public safety.'
> >And don't ever forget it.
>
> No, it is no cry for justice. Otherwise you had to execute ALL offenders
> and - if SOLELY the dead victim counts - even ALL that killed incidentally,
> without malice aforethought in the last consequence.
>
So YOU see Justice as EXECUTING ALL offenders? Please..
I don't think even joe1orbit suggested that. I never said
that SOLELY the dead victim counts. I am saying they
COUNT. You would say they DO NOT COUNT.
> >
> >> I'm in deep regret for ANY human being frauded his pursuit of happiness
> in
> >> secularity, for this you can be sure. But do not expect from me the
> joining
> >> in in the retentionist whining about a victim for absolutely no other
> reason
> >> than to cover and to justify their hatred. Or would you lament equally
> for
> >> the victim of a car accident 15 years later?
> >>
> >Don't give me that crap... you're not in any deep regret
> >at all... it's all a facade.
>
> Well, you know that, hmmmm??? What do you know at all about me?
I know you think the 'dirt people' are rather neat because
they pet their kill before killing them. I know you're half-blind
to the reality of murder. I don't actually have to know much
more that that, to understand you have some very deep
mental problems in relating to murderers.
> I presented
> to you and AAD-P my considerations about the DP and very little else.
>
> This most impudent accusation without ANY of a provable fundament requires a
> little consideration in view of it's origin:
>
???? See what I mean. English, sport. It's a large part
of your problem.
> (1) You got into most severe difficulties in our argument whole the line:
>
> (a) No answer to 'Weak defense first - switch of proof's burden second'
?????
> (b) No answer to 'Nature and purpose of the appeals'
?????
> (c) No answer to 'Limits of Self-Defense'
?????
> (d) No answer to 'Limits of "deserves"'
?????
> (e) No answer to 'Lacking considerations of Clemency'
?????
> (f) No answer to 'OBVIOUS hatred in the DP'
?????
> (g) No answer to 'Influences of society on her individuals'
?????
> (h) No answer to 'Offender's innocent related terribly punished by the DP'
?????
> (i) No answer to 'Where are your alleged improvements of the DP since ca.
> '76?'
?????
> (j) No answer to 'Could it be that your DP-concept is not practicable in ANY
> society, for the omnipresent human biasm?'
>
?????
> for to mention only a few major points. <And Please: Spare me of answering
> now to the points, you had opportunity enough. Any of this points had been
> elaborated and presented en detaille. No chance for any reply now to this
> most simplified collection of headlines.>
I'll spare you, alright... because you obviously have a
screw loose.
>
> (2) You got in this difficulties discussing with a FOREIGNER - what a shame.
No, I got into difficult trying to discuss with an IDIOT
FOREIGNER.
> (3) You are TOTALLY UNABLE to admit even the tiniest error or flaw.
What are you talking about?? I've admitted error after
error in our use of the DP. That doesn't affect my
overall view of its applicability. It is YOU who has
refused to recognize ERRORS in your logic.
> (4) You have been coerced into considerations about single cases PROVING
> your DP-Dream wrong thoroughly.
???????
> (5) You became aggressive seeing your case lost and your dream splattered.
Funny... very funny. It is you who has become
aggressive, sport. I've simply washed my hands of
you.
> (6) And Conclusion: Like usual in ancient times you - as your last
> refugium - decided to kill the messenger after handing the bad news over to
> you.
??????
>
> >You're in deep regret for the
> >MURDERER, my friend.
>
> Yes I am.
Thank you, but I already told you you were. Unfortunately
you have no feelings for the victim, whatsoever.
> I am in deep regret for any human being that was for whatever
> reasons not permitted to develop the strength, depth and solidarity
> necessary for to live in harmony with his peers as it should be. And I'm in
> deep regret for any society that let's herself infect with this brutality of
> single misguided individuals.
>
??????
> And apparently when WE think
> >of the victim, YOU would refer to it as 'whining.'
>
> Yessir.
Thank you for admitting you believe that when we
express pity and feelings for the victim, you think
of us as 'whining.'
> Pathetically liarish whining about a dead human, long after the
> natural time of burning grief is over. While the Death's Advocates are after
> 20 years still lamenting about a human UNKNOWN to them quite some of
> victim's related already got the admirable strength even to FORGIVE the
> offender the share of harm done to them personally. You are ABUSING the
> situation for to feed your own hatred.
>
Oh, yeah.... they've been dead a LONG time. No need
to worry about them anymore. Just let the murderer
loose to start a new string.
> >So I
> >guess you feel we should just stop 'whining' about that
> >good-for-nothing victim, dead all those years. And
> >start concentrating on that pure-of-heart murderer.
> >
>
> I guess you should start to question your standpoint. "Murder demands for
> the DP,
Actually, Jürgen, if you claim that is my position then
you are obviously lying, and becoming a bit hysterical
having been shown up. Murder does not DEMAND
for the DP, IMHO. Murder calls for an EXAMINATION
of the murderer to DETERMINE if the DP is appropriate.
Quite different, and I think your English is failing you
yet again.
> and all lesser punishments are an undeserved and
> voluntary *mercy*
> to the murderer", that is yours, and that is (1) *UNBEARABLE*
> for a modern
> justice system and (2) your loophole for to explain all the silliness,
> brutality, arbitrariness and - yes - DEPRAVITY of the US-DP away
> in a most
> simplicistic manner.
>
???????
> <snip>
>
> >
> >> Thus, I dislike the term "equation" totally in regard to the topic DP.
> >
> >It doesn't matter what you dislike. You've obviously
> >eliminated the VICTIM from any consideration in the
> >EQUATION which determines the appropriate use of
> >the DP.
>
> As usual, the unanswerable point snipped. For your revenge
> you are prepared
> to drive innocents into the worst mental pain.
>
Innocents???? Who are they? As usual, the incomprehensible
point was snipped, old boy. Not the unanswerable, but the
ridiculous.
> And as usual, my advocating for a long prison term as the penalty
> for murder
> was interpreted as a total elimination of the victim, as if I'd like to see
> murderers go free.
>
Oh, I'm beginning to think you would. You haven't convinced
me that you wouldn't, with the course of your comments
in the past few months. I think you'd VERY MUCH like
to see a vast number of murderers returned to society
to murder again.
> You are fixed, Sir. Fixed in concrete. Although totally unable to reply
> meaningfully to (a) to (j) = 10 points you are clutching your "equation of
> death", merely slightly covered by a shiny worn moral hat.
>
????????
> Juergen
>
> P.s. Flame around and spout your venon - good luck. I do not care. And
> again, you can be sure of your incognito regardless of the level you might
> descend to. I, for my part, will tell what I see for the truth after 21
> months discussing with you. I will be honest and will not keep hidden even
> nasty thoughts, may they concern you or your "Fabric". Truth is truth, and
> the execution of lots over lots of humans not more dangerous or depraved
> than other guilties *IS* truth.
>
??????
You should know that ????? now indicates either you
have no point, your point is stupid, or you have failed
to form a point in the English language. Take your
pick.
PV
PS -- By now I think you see that I'm THE ONLY ONE
talking to you. Peter defending you doesn't count,
since he does so simply because it is ME, and has
nothing to do with YOU.
Exador
>
> "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:mHqT7.24392$pU3.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...> > news:OWpT7.131441$Ga5.19...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3c1dcce3$0$17880$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > > > Identify any sentence that resurrects a murder victim
> > > > and hence restores
> > > > "victims' rights"
> > >
> > > That's ridiculous, it is a given that we cannot reverse
> > > TIME. The rape victim cannot be restored whole again.
> > > She will ALWAYS be a rape victim. Sentencing the
> > > rapist to a penalty does NOT restore the rape victim.
> > > And if the application of the SAME penalty as the CRIME,
> > > could REVERSE the crime itself, you would see EVERY
> > > penalty for the crime of rape, be the rape of the rapist
> > > himself. The use of the DP is not to REVERSE the
> > > effects of the murder, it is to JUDGE the effects of
> > > the murder.
> > >
> > > > No such rights exist, as the dead have no rights;ask any
> > > > music or book publisher.
> > >
> > > There you have it, folks. The sensitive abolitionist
> > > proclaims that 'victims' rights' do not exist.
> >
> > You can huff and you can puff but you cannot blow
> > this particular house down. It isn't a question of
> > sensitivity just plain old logic.
> >
> No, you're quite wrong there... it is ONLY a question
> of sensitivity. One either has it toward the recognition
> of the victim, and the 'rights' that cannot be taken away
> from them by a murderer... or one does not.
You're being offensive again PV. Not nice.
--
Cheers,
Craig
> PV
>
John Rennie
..
> > You're being offensive again PV. Not nice.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> > PV
> >
>
>
Not even his best friends call PV nice but he is good fun.
My biggest moan about him is the incredible amount of verbiage that he uses.
He makes a good point and he is so pleased with himself, that he decides to
make it again and again; making sure that we understand it by capitalising
what he considers to be important words or phrases. This has the effect
of rendering his readers
comatose; I have literally developed a migraine from trying to
follow through his comments on some particularly long thread which is made
that much more difficult by his inability to snip his own excessive
verbiage. However he has developed the art of snipping other people's
comments
to render them laughable. Thus he is able to produce strawmen which even
the original sender often finds himself defending even tho' he never said
them in the first place. The only way to reply to him is to keep your
response short and brutal and never but never resort to personal abuse. I
cheerfully acknowledge that in this area of Usenet he has no master. If
you can bear with him, you will enjoy this news group because without him
it would be a poor thing.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
<snip>
>> No, it is no cry for justice. Otherwise you had to execute ALL offenders
>> and - if SOLELY the dead victim counts - even ALL that killed
incidentally,
>> without malice aforethought in the last consequence.
>>
>So YOU see Justice as EXECUTING ALL offenders? Please..
>I don't think even joe1orbit suggested that. I never said
>that SOLELY the dead victim counts.
Of course you did. YOU and nobody else accused ANYONE merely regarding
points other than the dead victim of making murderer-apologies.
I am saying they
>COUNT. You would say they DO NOT COUNT.
No, that is what you CLAIM about me. A ridiculous conclusion, based on
selective reading and twisting my words.
<snip>
>> >Don't give me that crap... you're not in any deep regret
>> >at all... it's all a facade.
>>
>> Well, you know that, hmmmm??? What do you know at all about me?
>
>I know...
YOU know NOTHING. You ALLEGE and SUPPOSE.
...you think the 'dirt people' are rather neat because
>they pet their kill before killing them. I know you're half-blind
>to the reality of murder.
That's a good one. The "reality of murder". The "reality of murder" is among
many positive the bitter consequence of the reality of human's
self-awareness and transcendent thinking.
I don't actually have to know much
>more that that, to understand you have some very deep
>mental problems in relating to murderers.
Yeah, Mylord. On Points you can't answer properly. But distorting arguments,
drawing willingly false conclusions, selling them for the truth for then to
insult the discussion partner, that is your branch. You are a basher.
With what I have a mental problem is the DP, and especially the DP in the
"Greatest Country In The Face Of The World".
<more insults snipped>
>> (3) You are TOTALLY UNABLE to admit even the tiniest error or flaw.
>
>What are you talking about?? I've admitted error after
>error in our use of the DP.
Well, you occasionally mumbled: "I think we shouldn't have executed this or
that one." When however questioned about what in consequence were the
motives for the execution and what were the flaws having led to it you
always claimed any hidden and superior knowledge of the jury and the
officials. No, Sir, you admitted NULL.
Did you object even one time openly, by addressing your officials, to ANY of
the 85% "unnecessary" executions? I do not think so.
<snip>
>> I guess you should start to question your standpoint. "Murder demands for
>> the DP,
>
>Actually, Jürgen, if you claim that is my position then
>you are obviously lying, and becoming a bit hysterical
>having been shown up. Murder does not DEMAND
>for the DP, IMHO. Murder calls for an EXAMINATION
>of the murderer to DETERMINE if the DP is appropriate.
>Quite different, and I think your English is failing you
>yet again.
Let's view afew of your statements:
(1) "A murderer has no rights"
(2) "We enact mercy in the sentencing phase"
(3) "The execution of ANY guilty <of murder, Jürgen's remark> is NEVER a
fault"
Maybe my English fails me occasionally, but in this case I rather think you
do not understand your own speach. You expressed this sights at least a
thousand times, besides, in various forms, so not even the most pathetic
translator had even the CHANCE to miss the semantic.
It means nothing else than: 'The accusation 'murder' justifies ANYTHING a
priori. If not the maximal penalty is inflicted then this is a VOLUNTARY ACT
OF MERCY, if the DP is inflicted then this is never anything else than to
deny VOLUNTARINESS. Thus, ANY execution of ANY guilty is regardless of ANY
circumstances EVER JUST AND APPROPRIATE, because of (3)'.
Call me a liar, Mister, if you can't write anything better, but it is YOUR
VERY SPEACH that in all clarity points out that the DP *IS* the STANDARD in
your mind, and under this STANDARD you are prepared to DISCUSS a lesser
penalty on a pure VOLUNTARY base. All lesser penalties for murder are
VOLUNTARINESS, NOT BINDING LAW, AN ACT OF MERCY in your very opinion, and
this is a DIRECT consequence of YOUR statements. You are APPROACHING to any
guilty having the DP in mind and THEN you PERHAPS are willing to discuss a
more lenient sentence.
This your thought gets even aggravated in it's weight after you presented an
exceeding scope for what to be estimated for murder.
<snip>
>> As usual, the unanswerable point snipped. For your revenge
>> you are prepared
>> to drive innocents into the worst mental pain.
>>
>Innocents???? Who are they? As usual, the incomprehensible
>point was snipped, old boy. Not the unanswerable, but the
>ridiculous.
Well, the innocent related of any guilty human are ridiculous, I see. The
situation being confronted with the alternatives to either give up all for
to fight for a guilty (or even innocent, not too seldom) loved one on Death
Row or to give up him and to continue the own life, now burdened with the
thought to have done nothing for his rescue is a reason for your amusement.
>> And as usual, my advocating for a long prison term as the penalty
>> for murder
>> was interpreted as a total elimination of the victim, as if I'd like to
see
>> murderers go free.
>>
>Oh, I'm beginning to think you would. You haven't convinced
>me that you wouldn't, with the course of your comments
>in the past few months. I think you'd VERY MUCH like
>to see a vast number of murderers returned to society
>to murder again.
Platitudes and downright Lies about me.
<A short note to your recently awakened critics concerning my language
skills, which you obviously want to elevate to a major point in view of our
conversation. I yet found exclusively people appreciating my attempts and
effords to care for their language, Sir, not one single critizised me the
way you do. Be it French, Italian, Portuges, Greek, English or Espanol, all
this nationals appreciated my concern with their idiomata, even if I was/am
way from perfection.
You, Master, are the very single one that tries to make a most shabby point
of the fact that I'm not born into and educated within an English society.
Not one else ever showed this attitude to me, and I could bet you will
remain the single one. That you raised this critics after a more than 1 1/2
years lasting conversation makes the entire attack even upmost ludicrous,
while in the meantime alot of American Citizens have attested even EXCELLENT
English to me.
Recently on a German newsboard posted some Americans, too, in German. Not
perfect but understandable. Had I lowered myself to flame them for their
imperfect German I'd felt as an arrogant prick, Meister. If you do not WANT
to understand then do not reply to my posts.>
Respectfully
Juergen
Peter Morris
> > > And your words that
> > > ''It has to be said four out of seven of the victims
> > > of these murders were criminals," certainly shows
> > > more empathy toward the murderers then the victims
> >
> > No, it was pointing out that YOU were lying.
>
> How is that, Peter? I had said that there were seven
> victims. That's a truth.
No, PV. You said that there were 300 murderers had their
sentences commuted, and that they murdered 6 "innocent"
people, and none of them were innocent.
The true facts are
- That there were 600+ prisonners had their sentences
overturned, not 300 as you claimed.
- They murdered 7 people, not 6, as you claimed.
- That many of them were rapists and armed robbers, not
murderers as you claimed.
- That most of the victims were criminals, and perhaps
themselves death row commutees, not "innocent" people
as you claimed.
- There were, at the time of the report, four who had later
been shown to be innocent, not none as you claimed.
You wished to make a point about how not executing
murderers puts "innocent" lives in danger. You thought
it would sound less impressive if the victims were themselves
murderers. It is you, not me, that thinks that they "deserve to be
murdered" The fact that you deliberately concealed the facts
shows this.
> Your WORDS do you in, Peter. Not mine, but
> YOUR words. I've cited your EXACT words, and
> not out of any supposed context. You simply make
> absurd accusations, with no proof whatsoever.
I state truely what you said and did. You "quote" my words,
then attach an additional meaning to them. You concealed
facts. I pointed out the facts that YOU had hidden. I commented
on YOUR lies, and you interpret that as showing "empathy" for
the murderers.
A Planet Visitor
"Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c206764$0$23430$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
provides those rights, quite reasonably exist after
the death of the person holding such rights, I think
I have a 'right' to be 'offended' when someone
claims those 'rights' somehow magically disappear
when a person is murdered.
Nonetheless. I think we have reached a point that
we need to examine YOUR view regarding the DP,
irrespective of MY view. I believe your main argument
is
1) The U.S. is generally dystopian.
2) A dystopian society contains social injustice.
3) This social injustice contributes to increased violence.
4) the DP does not CONTRIBUTE to that dystopia
nor that increased violence, it is simply a 'symptom'
of that dystopia.
If these are not your true feelings, then we can discuss
the comments you've made that lead me to believe
this is what you feel.
So if this IS your view, let's examine the ONLY logical
possibilities --
A) The U.S. is NOT dystopian --- If that were the case,
your entire argument fails, from the first principle.
B) The U.S. is dystopian --- But it is realized that IF
it is dystopian there is a higher rate of violence.
So how do we COPE with this higher rate of violence,
since our purpose is obviously to reduce any
dystopian function in our society? It can hardly be
assumed that providing MORE generous sentencing
to those causing violence will reduce that higher rate
of violence. We ALL know of the 'spoiled child'
syndrome. Unless clear lines of behavior are drawn,
a child will ALWAYS push the envelope of behavior.
So the contrary position must be seen as reasonable.
The fact that you claim the DP is a 'symptom' of a
dystopian society may well be TRUE. But that in
no way DENIES that it has VALUE in a dystopian
society.
So in general, if the U.S. is not dystopian, your
argument is flawed. If the U.S. is dystopian, your
argument that the 'DP is flawed' does not make
logical sense, because you have admitted that
it is a 'symptom' and not a 'cause' of that dystopian
society. Thus, its elimination will have NO effect
on changes in the dystopian society. Quite
seriously... fix the dystopian aspects of the
society, and the DP will wither on the vine.
Hoping to 'cure' a dystopian society, by abolishing
something that is a 'symptom' WILL NOT cure
the disease.
PV
> Cheers,
> Craig
Exador
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Hk_T7.37858$pU3.4...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> "Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c206764$0$23430$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au.
>
> ..
> > > You're being offensive again PV. Not nice.
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > > PV
> > >
> >
> >
> Not even his best friends call PV nice but he is good fun.
I'll concede that point, albeit with some reservations at the moment.
> My biggest moan about him is the incredible amount of verbiage that he
uses.
> He makes a good point and he is so pleased with himself, that he decides
to
> make it again and again; making sure that we understand it by capitalising
> what he considers to be important words or phrases. This has the effect
> of rendering his readers
> comatose; I have literally developed a migraine from trying to
> follow through his comments on some particularly long thread which is made
> that much more difficult by his inability to snip his own excessive
> verbiage. However he has developed the art of snipping other people's
> comments
> to render them laughable. Thus he is able to produce strawmen which
even
> the original sender often finds himself defending even tho' he never said
> them in the first place. The only way to reply to him is to keep your
> response short and brutal and never but never resort to personal abuse.
I
> cheerfully acknowledge that in this area of Usenet he has no master. If
> you can bear with him, you will enjoy this news group because without him
> it would be a poor thing.
I couldn't agree more, every NG needs a "black beast". :). I rarely resort
to personal attacks, and usually only if the person has shown himelf
incapable of understanding any other form of "argument". I must admit to
some trolling with PV though, and I think I've gained a bit more insight
into his personality as a result.
I look forward to some interesting discussions to come.
--
Cheers,
Craig
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message news:9vqjcu$8ht$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> news:n6PT7.119399$oj3.20...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> > > > And your words that
> > > > ''It has to be said four out of seven of the victims
> > > > of these murders were criminals," certainly shows
> > > > more empathy toward the murderers then the victims
> > >
> > > No, it was pointing out that YOU were lying.
> >
> > How is that, Peter? I had said that there were seven
> > victims. That's a truth.
>
> No, PV. You said that there were 300 murderers had their
> sentences commuted, and that they murdered 6 "innocent"
> people, and none of them were innocent.
>
IN prison. I have always contended that there were
six confirmed murders by those having had their
sentences commuted to ALTERNATE sentences.
Four other prisoners, and two correctional officers.
The seventh murder was committed by a convicted
murderer who was FREED and murdered outside of
prison, the very infamous Kenneth McDuff.
I've always contended that the ~300 murderers who
HAD their sentences commuted to ALTERNATE
sentences had murdered 6 innocent people, INSIDE
prison, and every one they murdered was innocent,
including those that you claimed "It has to be said
four out of seven of the victims of these murders
here, are THOSE your exact words? Was there
some reason for you to give a LESSER value to
a 'criminal' than to an 'innocent'? The world waits
for a answer to THIS specific question.
<clipped>
> - That many of them were rapists and armed robbers, not
> murderers as you claimed.
>
There were 558 Furman commuted inmates who had
their sentences commuted in the study. 474 were
capital murderers, eighty-one were rapists, and four
were armed robbers. Of that 558, 315 were NOT
been released from prison and constitute the group
who REMAINED in prison, providing a more positive
identification of behavior following commutation from
the DP. We can be much more CERTAIN of the
murders they commit in prison, then we can of the
others who returned to society, who might well
exceed that number. For the six murders committed
in prison, the four prisoner murders occurred in
Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania. Both
prison guard murders occurred in Ohio. ALL the
institutional killers of these six, were serving time for
CAPITAL MURDER. Two were again sentenced to
death... one for the murder of an inmate in Florida,
and the other for the murder of a guard in Ohio.
And if that behavior is PROVEN to be demonstrated
IN PRISON, one can only extrapolate the horrendous
understanding that quite a few more murders would
probably have been committed by those 315, had
they not been in the rather strict confinement of a
prison which limits access to weapons.
> - That most of the victims were criminals, and perhaps
> themselves death row commutees, not "innocent" people
> as you claimed.
>
But of course they were INNOCENT. Are you claiming
they were GUILTY of BEING murdered? What kind of
an abolitionist are you, anyway? Apparently you believe
only the murderers should not be executed, but it's
quite all right for the murderers in prison to murder
criminals.
> - There were, at the time of the report, four who had later
> been shown to be innocent, not none as you claimed.
>
> You wished to make a point about how not executing
> murderers puts "innocent" lives in danger. You thought
> it would sound less impressive if the victims were themselves
> murderers. It is you, not me, that thinks that they "deserve to be
> murdered" The fact that you deliberately concealed the facts
> shows this.
No, my friend... it is clearly YOU who believe they
'deserve to be murdered.' You will only find a clear
statement from me that "NO ONE DESERVES TO BE
MURDERED." But I've found them from you, with the
clear statement you made, above.
>
>
> > Your WORDS do you in, Peter. Not mine, but
> > YOUR words. I've cited your EXACT words, and
> > not out of any supposed context. You simply make
> > absurd accusations, with no proof whatsoever.
>
> I state truely what you said and did. You "quote" my words,
> then attach an additional meaning to them. You concealed
> facts. I pointed out the facts that YOU had hidden. I commented
> on YOUR lies, and you interpret that as showing "empathy" for
> the murderers.
>
Hello... how can one ATTACH a meaning to the statement,
"It has to be said four out of seven of the victims of these
murders were criminals," that does not clearly imply that
'criminals' are DIFFERENT than normal folks when it
comes to being murdered? How can one NOT draw the
clear implication that you do not VALUE the life of a
criminal to the same extent as another life? Can you
explain to me what you MEANT when you said those
words? Let's for a moment ASSUME that ALL of the
murdered prisoners were those who had been
sentenced to the DP, although I know that for a fact to
not be true. Let's say they also had their sentences
commuted and were murdered in prison by OTHERS
who ALSO had their sentences commuted (an almost
absurd impossibility for even one, given the necessity
that BOTH the victim and the murderer would have
been in the SAME prison, and received the SAME
commutation, when thinking of the total prison
population and considering we are only looking at 315
commuted DP murderers). Nevertheless, even
assuming that, did THEY DESERVE to be murdered?
Can you explain the difference between the murder
of a murderer and the murder of an innocent, which
would cause you to say "It has to be said....."? Is
one right, and one wrong? Is the DP never
excusable, but murder sometimes excusable if the
victim is a murderer?
PV
Exador
--
Cheers,
Craig
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:_F4U7.124226$oj3.21...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
These are some of the arguments, although taken out of context to an extent
and incomplete. I am on a tight timeframe this morning and will fully
respond this evening when I get home.
Don't respond to this one yet please PV, I'll get back to you this afternoon
(my time).
--
Cheers,
Craig
A Planet Visitor
"Richard Jackson" <ri...@lcc.net> wrote in message news:8cb86b49.01121...@posting.google.com...
> "Mike" <mik...@home.com> wrote in message news:<xBVS7.271964$ez.37...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>...
>
> Mike, I am a retentionists, but has anyone ever told you you were a dimwit?
>
Well... I think it has been mentioned a time or two. :-))
PV
> --
> Richard Jackson
>
A Planet Visitor
"Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c210c5f$0$26277$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Ah, but there's the rub... most abolitionists feel themselves
to be the 'white knight.' It doesn't work that way, of course.
:-)
I rarely resort
> to personal attacks, and usually only if the person has shown himelf
> incapable of understanding any other form of "argument". I must admit to
> some trolling with PV though, and I think I've gained a bit more insight
> into his personality as a result.
>
> I look forward to some interesting discussions to come.
>
All my discussions are 'interesting.' One can be interesting
and boring at the same time. I am proof of that.
PV
> --
> Cheers,
> Craig
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c206764$0$23430$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au.
>
> ..
> > > You're being offensive again PV. Not nice.
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > > PV
> > >
> >
> >
> Not even his best friends call PV nice
I think he's nice. For a grumpy old retired engineer, anyway.
*ducks thrown bricks, tin cans and old boots emanating from Florida*
> but he is good fun.
That he is.
> My biggest moan about him is the incredible amount of verbiage that he
> uses.
Yes. And the fact that he rarely divides his posts into sufficiently
small paragraphs to make them anything other than an optical nightmare.
Take note, PV.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
ri...@lcc.net (Richard Jackson) wrote:
> "Mike" <mik...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:<xBVS7.271964$ez.37...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>...
>
> Mike, I am a retentionists,
Love the typo. Reminds me of:
What is wrong with the following sentence:
"The Premier of Queensland are walking on water."
Answer? It should be:
"The Premier of Queensland are walking on very thin ice."
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> All my discussions are 'interesting.' One can be interesting
> and boring at the same time. I am proof of that.
Ooh! Love that one. That's been set aside for a future .sig.
Exador
> Well, seeing that I have proven that 'rights,' as society
> provides those rights, quite reasonably exist after
> the death of the person holding such rights, I think
> I have a 'right' to be 'offended' when someone
> claims those 'rights' somehow magically disappear
> when a person is murdered.
No, you have shown that a living person has the right to make a will that
assigns certain rights to others in the event of their death. This is simply
to ensure orderly passage of property between generations and avoid
squabbles. Once a person is dead, no rights remain to them. In the case of
defamation, even if a case is in process at the time of death, it is
invalidated by the death of the plaintiff.
> Nonetheless. I think we have reached a point that
> we need to examine YOUR view regarding the DP,
> irrespective of MY view. I believe your main argument
> is
>
> 1) The U.S. is generally dystopian.
The US is dystopian for many. I have no doubt that it some consider it to be
Utopia in their particular circumstances. These people are rarely
responsible for the commission of violent crime. On the whole I would agree
that the socio-economic structure of the US is generally dystopian.
> 2) A dystopian society contains social injustice.
This is trivial, but yes.
> 3) This social injustice contributes to increased violence.
Yes. Increased crime of all kinds.
> 4) the DP does not CONTRIBUTE to that dystopia
> nor that increased violence, it is simply a 'symptom'
> of that dystopia.
It is most certainly a symptom, although I have a suspicion that there is
also a positive feedback mechanism; ie,
a society is unjust >> it implements an unjust penalty to address the crime
consequent of that injustice >> the injustice is increased.
5. Reducing social injustice is the single most effective way to reduce the
incidence of crime, including violent crime.
6. A "civil" society has a responsibility to at least try to transcend the
flaws of individuals. This is a basic tenet IMHO. In other words, I expect
my society to behave better than I am capable of doing as I am subject to
emotional weighting of decision-making. I expect our lawmakers to be able in
the collective to disregard the emotional pulls and create truly just laws.
Of course, I'm often disappointed :(.
7. There are alternative sentences available, along with alternative
technological solutions that make the death penalty unnecessary, and are not
in themselves as "unjust" as the death penalty.
8. A civil society uses a test of "least harm" in deciding actions to take
in response to individual misbehaviour. IOW, if there are two alternative
sentences which both address the 4 requirements of a sentence as you have
clearly enunciated them, the one which causes the least harm to the person
being sentenced is chosen.
9. No society can be completely free of violent crime, unless it fails to
recognise violence as criminal, in which case the violence will be great
even though no criminality is involved.
There are corollaries and consequences arising from these general
principles, and I would be happy to discuss them.
> If these are not your true feelings, then we can discuss
> the comments you've made that lead me to believe
> this is what you feel.
These are my feelings, albeit a somewhat abbreviated summary..
> So if this IS your view, let's examine the ONLY logical
> possibilities --
> A) The U.S. is NOT dystopian --- If that were the case,
> your entire argument fails, from the first principle.
No, because the first principle is that injustice results in violent crime
increase. Let's examine YOUR position. Do you argue that the US approaches a
utopian society? If so, on what grounds?
> B) The U.S. is dystopian --- But it is realized that IF
> it is dystopian there is a higher rate of violence.
Or, we recognize that it has a higher rate of violence as a result of the
dystopia.
> So how do we COPE with this higher rate of violence,
> since our purpose is obviously to reduce any
> dystopian function in our society? It can hardly be
> assumed that providing MORE generous sentencing
> to those causing violence will reduce that higher rate
> of violence.
Who said anything about "more generous"? The issue is of allowing hope,
while guarding against recidivism. One of the resasons that people disregard
societal rules in the first place is that they feel society offers them no
hope.
>We ALL know of the 'spoiled child'
> syndrome.Unless clear lines of behavior are drawn,
> a child will ALWAYS push the envelope of behavior.
I have two children, and I have never raised a hand to either. Both are
regarded by those who know them as being extremely polite, well-mannered
children. There are more ways of instilling respect for rules than violent
punishments.
>So the contrary position must be seen as reasonable.
NO!
> The fact that you claim the DP is a 'symptom' of a
> dystopian society may well be TRUE. But that in
> no way DENIES that it has VALUE in a dystopian
> society.
See above. BTW, it most ceratinly has value, it allows for the worst aspects
of human nature to be given full socially-condoned reign. The disgusting
display over the "right" to broadcast the killing of McVeigh demonstrates
that very clearly, as do some of the more extreme rants within this group.
> So in general, if the U.S. is not dystopian, your
> argument is flawed. If the U.S. is dystopian, your
> argument that the 'DP is flawed' does not make
> logical sense, because you have admitted that
> it is a 'symptom' and not a 'cause' of that dystopian
> society.
See above.
>Thus, its elimination will have NO effect
> on changes in the dystopian society. Quite
> seriously... fix the dystopian aspects of the
> society, and the DP will wither on the vine.
Bingo. Precisely, Watson. this is one of those shining nuggets that makes it
worthwhile mining your posts PV.
> Hoping to 'cure' a dystopian society, by abolishing
> something that is a 'symptom' WILL NOT cure
> the disease.
The problem is that there is little attempt to cure the disease and the
symptom is regarded as a positive outcome.
> PV
--
Cheers,
Craig
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9vq3vn$drv$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
>
> <snip>
>
> >> No, it is no cry for justice. Otherwise you had to execute ALL offenders
> >> and - if SOLELY the dead victim counts - even ALL that killed
> incidentally,
> >> without malice aforethought in the last consequence.
> >>
> >So YOU see Justice as EXECUTING ALL offenders? Please..
> >I don't think even joe1orbit suggested that. I never said
> >that SOLELY the dead victim counts.
>
> Of course you did. YOU and nobody else accused ANYONE
> merely regarding
> points other than the dead victim of making murderer-apologies.
>
Of course I did not, and lying doesn't become you.
> I am saying they
> >COUNT. You would say they DO NOT COUNT.
>
> No, that is what you CLAIM about me. A ridiculous conclusion, based on
> selective reading and twisting my words.
>
Hardly, sport. You've claimed if we talk about them
we are 'whining.' That certainly means that
they do not COUNT to you. Tell me.. do dead
murder victims have 'rights'? Do ANY dead at all
have 'rights.'? This is of course a trick question.
> <snip>
>
> >> >Don't give me that crap... you're not in any deep regret
> >> >at all... it's all a facade.
> >>
> >> Well, you know that, hmmmm??? What do you know at all about me?
> >
> >I know...
>
> YOU know NOTHING. You ALLEGE and SUPPOSE.
>
> ...you think the 'dirt people' are rather neat because
> >they pet their kill before killing them. I know you're half-blind
> >to the reality of murder.
>
> That's a good one. The "reality of murder". The "reality of murder" is among
> many positive the bitter consequence of the reality of human's
> self-awareness and transcendent thinking.
>
?????????
> I don't actually have to know much
> >more that that, to understand you have some very deep
> >mental problems in relating to murderers.
>
> Yeah, Mylord. On Points you can't answer properly. But
> distorting arguments,
> drawing willingly false conclusions, selling them for the truth for then to
> insult the discussion partner, that is your branch. You are a basher.
>
???????????
> With what I have a mental problem is the DP, and especially
> the DP in the "Greatest Country In The Face Of The World".
>
???????????
> <more insults snipped>
>
> >> (3) You are TOTALLY UNABLE to admit even the tiniest error or flaw.
> >
> >What are you talking about?? I've admitted error after
> >error in our use of the DP.
>
> Well, you occasionally mumbled: "I think we shouldn't have executed this or
> that one." When however questioned about what in consequence were the
> motives for the execution and what were the flaws having led to it you
> always claimed any hidden and superior knowledge of the jury and the
> officials. No, Sir, you admitted NULL.
>
Ah... then I do admit error, I just don't admit it loud enough
for YOU. But you said TOTALLY UNABLE, in a high pitched
scream as well. So which is it, you sad sample of a human
being?
> Did you object even one time openly, by addressing your
> officials, to ANY of
> the 85% "unnecessary" executions? I do not think so.
>
??????????
> <snip>
>
> >> I guess you should start to question your standpoint. "Murder
> >> demands for
> >> the DP,
> >
> >Actually, Jürgen, if you claim that is my position then
> >you are obviously lying, and becoming a bit hysterical
> >having been shown up. Murder does not DEMAND
> >for the DP, IMHO. Murder calls for an EXAMINATION
> >of the murderer to DETERMINE if the DP is appropriate.
> >Quite different, and I think your English is failing you
> >yet again.
>
> Let's view afew of your statements:
>
> (1) "A murderer has no rights"
True... they lost all rights at the instant they murdered.
Society may do with them what it will, since it was the
one who had given them those rights in the first place.
Or do you believe that 'rights' don't devolve from men?
> (2) "We enact mercy in the sentencing phase"
Every time we sentence a murderer to an alternate
sentence other than the DP, of course we do. Without
mercy, they would ALL be executed after due process.
> (3) "The execution of ANY guilty <of murder, Jürgen's remark>
> is NEVER a
> fault"
>
?????????
> Maybe my English fails me occasionally, but in this case I rather think you
> do not understand your own speach. You expressed this sights at least a
> thousand times, besides, in various forms, so not even the most pathetic
> translator had even the CHANCE to miss the semantic.
>
No 'maybe' about it. It fails you more than occasionally.
In fact it failed you in the very sentence you speak of it,
above.
> It means nothing else than: 'The accusation 'murder' justifies ANYTHING a
> priori. If not the maximal penalty is inflicted then this is a VOLUNTARY ACT
> OF MERCY, if the DP is inflicted then this is never anything else than to
> deny VOLUNTARINESS. Thus, ANY execution of ANY guilty is regardless of ANY
> circumstances EVER JUST AND APPROPRIATE, because of (3)'.
>
> Call me a liar, Mister, if you can't write anything better, but it is YOUR
> VERY SPEACH that in all clarity points out that the DP *IS* the STANDARD in
> your mind, and under this STANDARD you are prepared to DISCUSS a lesser
> penalty on a pure VOLUNTARY base. All lesser penalties for murder are
> VOLUNTARINESS, NOT BINDING LAW, AN ACT OF MERCY in your very opinion, and
> this is a DIRECT consequence of YOUR statements. You are APPROACHING to any
> guilty having the DP in mind and THEN you PERHAPS are willing to discuss a
> more lenient sentence.
????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Boy, did it fail you just now. I'm sure even you don't
know what you're saying, and think by putting a lot of
words in capitals, you'll imitate me, hoping I might
understand. Sorry... it's all gibberish.
>
> This your thought gets even aggravated in it's weight after you presented an
> exceeding scope for what to be estimated for murder.
>
????????????? You're not getting any better.
> <snip>
> >> As usual, the unanswerable point snipped. For your revenge
> >> you are prepared
> >> to drive innocents into the worst mental pain.
> >>
> >Innocents???? Who are they? As usual, the incomprehensible
> >point was snipped, old boy. Not the unanswerable, but the
> >ridiculous.
>
> Well, the innocent related of any guilty human are ridiculous, I see. The
> situation being confronted with the alternatives to either give up all for
> to fight for a guilty (or even innocent, not too seldom) loved one on Death
> Row or to give up him and to continue the own life, now burdened with the
> thought to have done nothing for his rescue is a reason for your
> amusement.
If this is supposed to be a rewrite of what I said was
incomprehensible? It still is??????????????
>
> >> And as usual, my advocating for a long prison term as the penalty
> >> for murder
> >> was interpreted as a total elimination of the victim, as if I'd like to
> see
> >> murderers go free.
> >>
> >Oh, I'm beginning to think you would. You haven't convinced
> >me that you wouldn't, with the course of your comments
> >in the past few months. I think you'd VERY MUCH like
> >to see a vast number of murderers returned to society
> >to murder again.
>
> Platitudes and downright Lies about me.
>
Finally, a sentence I can understand. Unfortunately,
although understandable, it is wrong. You see I CAN
think what I want, which is what I've SAID I was doing.
> <A short note to your recently awakened critics concerning my language
> skills, which you obviously want to elevate to a major point in view of our
> conversation. I yet found exclusively people appreciating my attempts and
> effords to care for their language, Sir, not one single critizised me the
> way you do. Be it French, Italian, Portuges, Greek, English or Espanol, all
> this nationals appreciated my concern with their idiomata, even if I was/am
> way from perfection.
> You, Master, are the very single one that tries to make a most shabby point
> of the fact that I'm not born into and educated within an English society.
> Not one else ever showed this attitude to me, and I could bet you will
> remain the single one. That you raised this critics after a more than 1 1/2
> years lasting conversation makes the entire attack even upmost ludicrous,
> while in the meantime alot of American Citizens have attested even EXCELLENT
> English to me.
> Recently on a German newsboard posted some Americans, too, in German. Not
> perfect but understandable. Had I lowered myself to flame them for their
> imperfect German I'd felt as an arrogant prick, Meister. If you do not WANT
> to understand then do not reply to my posts.>
>
???????????????????? When will you learn to intelligently
put thought to paper in English? It has nothing to do with
a year and a half. But it also has everything to do with a
year and a half, because you have NOT improved in that
year and a half. I just grew tired of constantly spending
so long trying to decipher what you MEANT. I will not
honor you by doing so anymore, simply because your
posts are NOT WORTH THE EFFORT. I don't care about
all that other crap... it's just 'apology.' I see a distinct lack
of an ability to communicate in English with you. I have
every right to recognize that when you post to ME. You
must learn to accept criticism. If I have a problem
deciphering your horrid English, it's not MY fault.
So Respectfully shove it,
PV
> Respectfully
>
> Juergen
A Planet Visitor
"Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c213fa7$0$26276$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> [clipped]
>
>
> > Well, seeing that I have proven that 'rights,' as society
> > provides those rights, quite reasonably exist after
> > the death of the person holding such rights, I think
> > I have a 'right' to be 'offended' when someone
> > claims those 'rights' somehow magically disappear
> > when a person is murdered.
>
> No, you have shown that a living person has the right to make a will that
> assigns certain rights to others in the event of their death. This is simply
> to ensure orderly passage of property between generations and avoid
> squabbles. Once a person is dead, no rights remain to them. In the case of
> defamation, even if a case is in process at the time of death, it is
> invalidated by the death of the plaintiff.
>
approach. Who cares whether a 'will' exists or not?
The 'right' is there in the LAW. Are you saying that
a murder victim needs to make a will before being murdered
stating who will gain his 'rights' after his murder? That's
the most complete gibberish I've ever heard. Society
provides those 'rights.' Please do not argue from such
a senseless position. The person who held the copyright
(the 'right') did not lose that right on death. IT still EXISTED.
Regardless of whether the person did or did not. The
LAW provided for its existence past the death of
the holder of the copyright. I've had similar arguments
from some abolitionists when faced with COLD FACT.
And it sickens me. You have no idea how hard I fought
over the principle of 'society self-defense,' where others
claimed no such thing existed. That rather died down
when confronted with Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, but
I still see idiots unwilling to accept the TRUTH. Please
do not join that crowd by ignoring what is plain to see.
Simply move on, and do not argue this point any further,
if you expect to maintain any credibility here. In addition,
this is exactly what you said "Have a brief look at
copyright law as a very simple example, as well as the
laws of property and defamation. All of these laws
extinguish rights upon death." That's exactly what
I did look at. Now, obviously you were talking through
your hat, but you just don't know when to quit.
>
> > Nonetheless. I think we have reached a point that
> > we need to examine YOUR view regarding the DP,
> > irrespective of MY view. I believe your main argument
> > is
> >
> > 1) The U.S. is generally dystopian.
>
> The US is dystopian for many. I have no doubt that it some consider it to be
> Utopia in their particular circumstances. These people are rarely
> responsible for the commission of violent crime. On the whole I would agree
> that the socio-economic structure of the US is generally dystopian.
>
presently pretty dystopian for millions of people."
> > 2) A dystopian society contains social injustice.
>
> This is trivial, but yes.
>
NOTHING about social injustice is TRIVIAL.
> > 3) This social injustice contributes to increased violence.
>
>Yes. Increased crime of all kinds.
Well, I can't agree that it contributes to increased
jaywalking, but your point is taken.
>
> > 4) the DP does not CONTRIBUTE to that dystopia
> > nor that increased violence, it is simply a 'symptom'
> > of that dystopia.
>
> It is most certainly a symptom, although I have a suspicion that there is
> also a positive feedback mechanism; ie,
> a society is unjust >> it implements an unjust penalty to address the crime
> consequent of that injustice >> the injustice is increased.
But you're now fundamentally disagreeing with what
you said before -- you were quite clear in your belief --
"I don't believe that injustice will be abolished by
abolition of the death penalty and have never said so."
And I'm sure I can find other statements you made
similar to that in our present dialog. You now form the
premise that injustice CAN be cured by this 'feedback
process,' you've suddenly come up with. Quite clearly,
there IS NO 'feedback process.' It is simply social
injustice ==> increased violence ==> higher murder
rate ==> perception of need for greater penalties ==>
use of DP. You simply cannot draw the arrows in the
other direction, or think you can draw a loop. You
yourself, said it's a SYMPTOM. So can you make up
your mind? Or do you change it every time you come
to a paradox?
>
> 5. Reducing social injustice is the single most effective way to reduce the
> incidence of crime, including violent crime.
>
No disagreement from me. You will note that you did not use
the word DP. Thus it seem immaterial to the general
argument. It's simplistically obvious that reducing social
injustice will reduce crime.
> 6. A "civil" society has a responsibility to at least try to transcend the
> flaws of individuals. This is a basic tenet IMHO.
I totally disagree with that. We have NO responsibility
to make APOLOGIES to individuals who have demonstrated
flaws which cause HARM to others. Never. Too many
have OVERCOME without demonstrating such flaws, to
claim we must apologize to those who do not. Were
we to believe we need to apologize to the dysfunctional,
we'd do a great disservice to those who have remained
functional, in spite of social injustice, and disenfranchisement.
And that has nothing to do with a dystopian or utopian
viewpoint.
> In other words, I expect
> my society to behave better than I am capable of doing as I am subject to
> emotional weighting of decision-making. I expect our lawmakers to be
> able in
> the collective to disregard the emotional pulls and create truly just laws.
> Of course, I'm often disappointed :(.
>
Well, this bears on YOUR expectations. That hardly
demonstrates any connection to the DP as an issue, but
simply your disapproval of it. Certainly there are many
that approve of it, as well.
> 7. There are alternative sentences available, along with alternative
> technological solutions that make the death penalty unnecessary,
> and are not
> in themselves as "unjust" as the death penalty.
>
But this of course is why I provided my list for one thing.
It's an absolute certainty that the DP prevents at least
SOME new murders of innocents. Given my list, it's
inconceivable that from the entire SUM of all those ~740
executed murderers in ~25 year at least one new murder
would have been committed by at least ONE of them,
had they NOT been executed. That's almost a mathematical
certainty. Further, in a dystopia it is obvious that a more
clear statement must be made by society that it will NOT
accept such high levels of violence, and will act in a
manner which it considers moral and effective to reduce
such violence. The DP is certainly seen by many as
serving that purpose.
> 8. A civil society uses a test of "least harm" in deciding actions to take
> in response to individual misbehaviour. IOW, if there are two alternative
> sentences which both address the 4 requirements of a sentence as
> you have
> clearly enunciated them, the one which causes the least harm to the person
> being sentenced is chosen.
>
It is 'least harm' with EQUAL protection. If it were simply
'least harm' that is NO HARM AT ALL.
> 9. No society can be completely free of violent crime, unless it fails to
> recognise violence as criminal, in which case the violence will be great
> even though no criminality is involved.
>
I think we agree that violence is criminal. How you feel that
impacts the DP is a mystery to me.
> There are corollaries and consequences arising from these general
> principles, and I would be happy to discuss them.
>
Have at it.
> > If these are not your true feelings, then we can discuss
> > the comments you've made that lead me to believe
> > this is what you feel.
>
> These are my feelings, albeit a somewhat abbreviated summary..
>
But throughout those feelings, the only thing I've been
able to glean is that you see the U.S. as generally
dystopian. Violence follows that. The DP follows
that. It seems rather the way things SHOULD be,
to me... rather than what you feel is -- The U.S. is
generally dystopian. Violence follows that. The
DP should be abolished. Sorry, but I do not see that
connection.
> > So if this IS your view, let's examine the ONLY logical
> > possibilities --
> > A) The U.S. is NOT dystopian --- If that were the case,
> > your entire argument fails, from the first principle.
>
> No, because the first principle is that injustice results in violent crime
> increase. Let's examine YOUR position. Do you argue that the
> US approaches a
> utopian society? If so, on what grounds?
>
I'm not arguing anything. I'm examining YOUR
argument. If the U.S. is NOT dystopian your
argument makes little sense, because it is based on
the U.S. being generally a dystopia. Why examine
my position when I haven't even GIVEN ONE?
I see this generally as an attempt to divert from
the examination of YOUR argument, since I have
no argument regarding the U.S. as dystopia or
not. It's been YOU, all the way.
> > B) The U.S. is dystopian --- But it is realized that IF
> > it is dystopian there is a higher rate of violence.
>
> Or, we recognize that it has a higher rate of violence as a result of the
> dystopia.
>
Huh????? 'Recognize,' 'Realize,' -- are you trying to
be pedantic now? My words were very similar to
yours, hardly requiring a 'or.'
> > So how do we COPE with this higher rate of violence,
> > since our purpose is obviously to reduce any
> > dystopian function in our society? It can hardly be
> > assumed that providing MORE generous sentencing
> > to those causing violence will reduce that higher rate
> > of violence.
>
> Who said anything about "more generous"?
Hello... you don't believe a sentence other than the DP
is 'more generous'? You'll need to be more specific,
because I think most people believe ANY penalty
other than the DP is 'more generous.'
> The issue is of allowing hope,
> while guarding against recidivism.
Why? Why waste precious resources on allowing hope
to those we know to be hopeless, to the best of our
human abilities to discern. Is it necessary that we
see HOPE in ALL? To me that's absurd, and senseless.
Why not focus the energies we would focus on the
'hopeless,' instead on those who we perceive have
some hope? And you'll ALWAYS lose the battle in
an argument against recidivism, because of the
simple truism that NO executed murderer has ever
murdered again. There is no other penalty for any
other crime that can guarantee that low a rate of
recidivism.
> One of the resasons that
> people disregard
> societal rules in the first place is that they feel society offers them no
> hope.
>
How does that affect the DP??? It's simply a rather
trite appeal to feel SORRY for those who disregard
societal rules.
> >We ALL know of the 'spoiled child'
> > syndrome.Unless clear lines of behavior are drawn,
> > a child will ALWAYS push the envelope of behavior.
>
> I have two children, and I have never raised a hand to either.
You don't draw clear lines of behavior??? How do they
KNOW what they may or may not do. It has nothing
to do with corporal punishment. It has to do with
understanding the LIMITS, and the penalties (whether
it is simply a time-out), that will result should those limits
be exceeded.
> Both are
> regarded by those who know them as being extremely
> polite, well-mannered children. There are more ways
> of instilling respect for rules than violent
> punishments.
>
Spare me, please. We are speaking of LIMITS. I do
not expect your children to be murderers.
> >So the contrary position must be seen as reasonable.
>
> NO!
>
yes. Are you saying we DON'T need to establish
limits of conduct in society? Isn't that why we have
laws at all?
> > The fact that you claim the DP is a 'symptom' of a
> > dystopian society may well be TRUE. But that in
> > no way DENIES that it has VALUE in a dystopian
> > society.
>
> See above. BTW, it most ceratinly has value, it allows for the worst aspects
> of human nature to be given full socially-condoned reign. The disgusting
> display over the "right" to broadcast the killing of McVeigh demonstrates
> that very clearly, as do some of the more extreme rants within this group.
>
That's simply a rant, when up to now in this particular
post, we've examined some points. I can disregard
it totally, as simply not germane to the argument.
Clearly, in the execution of Gary Graham we had
OPPONENTS of the DP, marching in front of the
prison, carrying AK-47 automatic weapons and
promising a blood-bath if the execution was carried
out. How hysterically primitive is that? We've had
an abolitionist here who's suggested that executioners
be KILLED, and that execution chambers be bombed.
Clearly all the ranting is not from the retentionist side.
But generally here, you will find that more in evidence
because the abolitionist is almost always from a foreign
country and there is naturally a 'inner feeling' to just
tell them to go to hell, from a U.S. citizen's viewpoint.
Lucky for you I am more refined and 'elitist.' :-)
> > So in general, if the U.S. is not dystopian, your
> > argument is flawed. If the U.S. is dystopian, your
> > argument that the 'DP is flawed' does not make
> > logical sense, because you have admitted that
> > it is a 'symptom' and not a 'cause' of that dystopian
> > society.
>
> See above.
>
I've seen it, I remain unconvinced, and I am more
certain that you lack the ammunition to convince me.
But if you stick around long enough, you may begin
to support the DP, with MY powers of persuasion. :-)
Seriously, I wish to change no person's view. I wish
only to present mine, and naturally it collides with
the views of most others here. That doesn't bother
me, since it gives me an opportunity to more closely
examine my own view, which is actually WHY I post
here. I am seen as highly argumentative, but it goes
with the territory. Were I not to be, I would be
overwhelmed... not with logic but with shear force,
as you have tried to do with your simplistic view
of the 'rights' of a human, dead or alive.
> >Thus, its elimination will have NO effect
> > on changes in the dystopian society. Quite
> > seriously... fix the dystopian aspects of the
> > society, and the DP will wither on the vine.
>
> Bingo. Precisely, Watson. this is one of those shining
> nuggets that makes it
> worthwhile mining your posts PV.
>
But I've NEVER said otherwise. Ask ANYONE here.
If the homicide rate in the U.S. approached that
which it is in most European nations, I'd have no
objection whatsoever to abolishing the DP in the
U.S. In fact, there was a poster from Japan, with
a handle 'loverain' who once asked about the DP
in Japan, and I told him Japan should abolish it,
because it was UNNECESSARY in that society.
> > Hoping to 'cure' a dystopian society, by abolishing
> > something that is a 'symptom' WILL NOT cure
> > the disease.
>
> The problem is that there is little attempt to cure the disease and the
> symptom is regarded as a positive outcome.
>
I think we are making slow progress in curing the
disease, but it is rather insidious and I've mentioned
the things that are insidious about it many times in
the past here. Most of all -- DISENFRANCHISEMENT.
There is NOTHING worse in the U.S. than RACIAL
INJUSTICE. Until we become aware that ALL MEN
are brothers, we are a nation without honor. It is
deeper than any SOCIAL PROGRAMS can repair.
Those are only cosmetic. It depends on the MIND
of each of us.
But in respect to your argument regarding the DP,
I can only say that, in the end I believe your two
arguments -- the DP is cheaper, and U.S. society
is dystopian, actually serve to work AGAINST any
belief that it should be abolished in the U.S.
> > PV
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
Exador
still persist in discussing what you feel I should have said rather than
what I DID say.
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:RHdU7.129989$oj3.22...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c213fa7$0$26276$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > [clipped]
> >
> >
> > > Well, seeing that I have proven that 'rights,' as society
> > > provides those rights, quite reasonably exist after
> > > the death of the person holding such rights, I think
> > > I have a 'right' to be 'offended' when someone
> > > claims those 'rights' somehow magically disappear
> > > when a person is murdered.
> >
> > No, you have shown that a living person has the right to make a will
that
> > assigns certain rights to others in the event of their death. This is
simply
> > to ensure orderly passage of property between generations and avoid
> > squabbles. Once a person is dead, no rights remain to them. In the case
of
> > defamation, even if a case is in process at the time of death, it is
> > invalidated by the death of the plaintiff.
> >
> What are you talking about? I've never seen a sneakier
> approach.
Coming from you PV, this feels oddly like a compliment. :)
>Who cares whether a 'will' exists or not?
> The 'right' is there in the LAW. Are you saying that
> a murder victim needs to make a will before being murdered
> stating who will gain his 'rights' after his murder? That's
> the most complete gibberish I've ever heard. Society
> provides those 'rights.' Please do not argue from such
> a senseless position. The person who held the copyright
> (the 'right') did not lose that right on death. IT still EXISTED.
We'll agree to disagree on this one. The Goodies (a British comedy show)
once did a sketch in which their house was incorporated in the concrete pier
of a bridge as they wouldn't sell up, and one of the characters has a rant
culminating in the cry "I demand to exercise my right to fatherhood", to
which the reply came "You can exercise it all you like, it'll be no good to
you down here".boom boom. The point is that no one dead is able to exercise
ANY right.
> Regardless of whether the person did or did not. The
> LAW provided for its existence past the death of
> the holder of the copyright.
>I've had similar arguments
> from some abolitionists when faced with COLD FACT.
> And it sickens me. You have no idea how hard I fought
> over the principle of 'society self-defense,' where others
> claimed no such thing existed. That rather died down
> when confronted with Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, but
> I still see idiots unwilling to accept the TRUTH. Please
> do not join that crowd by ignoring what is plain to see.
> Simply move on, and do not argue this point any further,
> if you expect to maintain any credibility here. In addition,
> this is exactly what you said "Have a brief look at
> copyright law as a very simple example, as well as the
> laws of property and defamation. All of these laws
> extinguish rights upon death." That's exactly what
> I did look at. Now, obviously you were talking through
> your hat, but you just don't know when to quit.
Not quite true WRT copyright PV, and you still haven't addressed the
property laws or defamation laws.
> > > Nonetheless. I think we have reached a point that
> > > we need to examine YOUR view regarding the DP,
> > > irrespective of MY view. I believe your main argument
> > > is
> > >
> > > 1) The U.S. is generally dystopian.
> >
> > The US is dystopian for many. I have no doubt that it some consider it
to be
> > Utopia in their particular circumstances. These people are rarely
> > responsible for the commission of violent crime. On the whole I would
agree
> > that the socio-economic structure of the US is generally dystopian.
> >
> Here's one particular thing you said "Your country is
> presently pretty dystopian for millions of people."
I stand by it.
> > > 2) A dystopian society contains social injustice.
> >
> > This is trivial, but yes.
> >
> NOTHING about social injustice is TRIVIAL.
True, but the statement is. It's a very simple logical identity, and to
argue against it would be to argue that social injustice is desirable.
>
> > > 3) This social injustice contributes to increased violence.
> >
> >Yes. Increased crime of all kinds.
>
> Well, I can't agree that it contributes to increased
> jaywalking, but your point is taken.
>
> >
> > > 4) the DP does not CONTRIBUTE to that dystopia
> > > nor that increased violence, it is simply a 'symptom'
> > > of that dystopia.
> >
> > It is most certainly a symptom, although I have a suspicion that there
is
> > also a positive feedback mechanism; ie,
> > a society is unjust >> it implements an unjust penalty to address the
crime
> > consequent of that injustice >> the injustice is increased.
>
> But you're now fundamentally disagreeing with what
> you said before -- you were quite clear in your belief --
> "I don't believe that injustice will be abolished by
> abolition of the death penalty and have never said so."
You really are dense sometimes. The death penalty is not the only form of
injustice, therefore abolishing it won't abolish injustice. It is A form of
injustice however and its implementation increases the total injustice being
perpetrated, which may well lead to further commission of crimes.
> And I'm sure I can find other statements you made
> similar to that in our present dialog. You now form the
> premise that injustice CAN be cured by this 'feedback
> process,' you've suddenly come up with.
No, I don't. Please don't try to put words in my mouth, I prefer to retain
that right for myself.
>Quite clearly,
> there IS NO 'feedback process.' It is simply social
> injustice ==> increased violence ==> higher murder
> rate ==> perception of need for greater penalties ==>
> use of DP. You simply cannot draw the arrows in the
> other direction, or think you can draw a loop.
You may well be right.
>You
> yourself, said it's a SYMPTOM. So can you make up
> your mind? Or do you change it every time you come
> to a paradox?
No, I said I have a suspicion that a feedback mechanism exists. I have no
evidence either way, but it would seem unlikely that it doesn't
> >
> > 5. Reducing social injustice is the single most effective way to reduce
the
> > incidence of crime, including violent crime.
> >
> No disagreement from me. You will note that you did not use
> the word DP. Thus it seem immaterial to the general
> argument. It's simplistically obvious that reducing social
> injustice will reduce crime.
>
> > 6. A "civil" society has a responsibility to at least try to transcend
the
> > flaws of individuals. This is a basic tenet IMHO.
>
> I totally disagree with that. We have NO responsibility
> to make APOLOGIES to individuals who have demonstrated
> flaws which cause HARM to others.
Quite right. Go to the top of the class.
> Never. Too many
> have OVERCOME without demonstrating such flaws, to
> claim we must apologize to those who do not. Were
> we to believe we need to apologize to the dysfunctional,
> we'd do a great disservice to those who have remained
> functional, in spite of social injustice, and disenfranchisement.
> And that has nothing to do with a dystopian or utopian
> viewpoint.
Great. So you believe the fact that some manage to struggle through despite
everything is valid reason to abandon those whom we (as a society) have
damaged. What a guy.
> > In other words, I expect
> > my society to behave better than I am capable of doing as I am subject
to
> > emotional weighting of decision-making. I expect our lawmakers to be
> > able in
> > the collective to disregard the emotional pulls and create truly just
laws.
> > Of course, I'm often disappointed :(.
> >
> Well, this bears on YOUR expectations. That hardly
> demonstrates any connection to the DP as an issue, but
> simply your disapproval of it. Certainly there are many
> that approve of it, as well.
There are. Are you saying that you don't believe in the responsibility of
the State to transcend personal failings? I hate to do it, but the results
of this belief within your society are to be seen in the Waco massacre and
going back a bit further, the Ohio State debacle. In both of those instances
too much authority and power was given to individuals without the checks and
balances of the State. There are many other examples. OTOH, lest I be seen
as completely one-eyed, your country has many positive examples of the
transcendence of the State, including the integration efforts and
Affirmative Action.
> > 7. There are alternative sentences available, along with alternative
> > technological solutions that make the death penalty unnecessary,
> > and are not
> > in themselves as "unjust" as the death penalty.
> >
> But this of course is why I provided my list for one thing.
> It's an absolute certainty that the DP prevents at least
> SOME new murders of innocents. Given my list, it's
> inconceivable that from the entire SUM of all those ~740
> executed murderers in ~25 year at least one new murder
> would have been committed by at least ONE of them,
> had they NOT been executed. That's almost a mathematical
> certainty. Further, in a dystopia it is obvious that a more
> clear statement must be made by society that it will NOT
> accept such high levels of violence, and will act in a
> manner which it considers moral and effective to reduce
> such violence.
Not necessarily. I would argue that such a statement is probably inevitable
in a dystopia, but only if the society has chosen to ignore the possibility
of utopia. In your country (and mine for that matter), those who make the
rules live in a pretty utopian society, while those who break them, don't.
The rules are designed to ensure that situation continues. The death penalty
is an expression of fear and loathing and as such can be nothing but
negative in its overall effect.
On top of everything else, there are technologies presently available which
can confine an individual within a small radius and are extremely reliable.
These are simple and effective and I'm not sure why they aren't more widely
used.
>The DP is certainly seen by many as
> serving that purpose.
>
> > 8. A civil society uses a test of "least harm" in deciding actions to
take
> > in response to individual misbehaviour. IOW, if there are two
alternative
> > sentences which both address the 4 requirements of a sentence as
> > you have
> > clearly enunciated them, the one which causes the least harm to the
person
> > being sentenced is chosen.
> >
> It is 'least harm' with EQUAL protection. If it were simply
> 'least harm' that is NO HARM AT ALL.
Very true.
> > 9. No society can be completely free of violent crime, unless it fails
to
> > recognise violence as criminal, in which case the violence will be great
> > even though no criminality is involved.
> >
>
> I think we agree that violence is criminal. How you feel that
> impacts the DP is a mystery to me.
It was a bit solipsistic. My real point was that crime of one sort or
another is likely to always be with us.
> > There are corollaries and consequences arising from these general
> > principles, and I would be happy to discuss them.
> >
> Have at it.
This post is already far too long. My e-mail address is valid, feel free to
mail me, or I'll start a new thread.
> > > If these are not your true feelings, then we can discuss
> > > the comments you've made that lead me to believe
> > > this is what you feel.
> >
> > These are my feelings, albeit a somewhat abbreviated summary..
> >
> But throughout those feelings, the only thing I've been
> able to glean is that you see the U.S. as generally
> dystopian. Violence follows that. The DP follows
> that. It seems rather the way things SHOULD be,
> to me... rather than what you feel is -- The U.S. is
> generally dystopian. Violence follows that. The
> DP should be abolished. Sorry, but I do not see that
> connection.
My view of the current situation is: the US is dystopian >addressing the
dystopia is not seen as a priority> crime is a problem as a
result>regressive sentencing regimes are introduced> the death penalty is
the ultimate regressive penalty.
My preferred outcome is: the US is dystopian> social injustice is seen as a
high priority> dystopian conditions are reduced> crime rate is reduced> the
death penalty is abolished
> > > So if this IS your view, let's examine the ONLY logical
> > > possibilities --
> > > A) The U.S. is NOT dystopian --- If that were the case,
> > > your entire argument fails, from the first principle.
> >
> > No, because the first principle is that injustice results in violent
crime
> > increase. Let's examine YOUR position. Do you argue that the
> > US approaches a
> > utopian society? If so, on what grounds?
> >
> I'm not arguing anything. I'm examining YOUR
> argument. If the U.S. is NOT dystopian your
> argument makes little sense, because it is based on
> the U.S. being generally a dystopia. Why examine
> my position when I haven't even GIVEN ONE?
> I see this generally as an attempt to divert from
> the examination of YOUR argument, since I have
> no argument regarding the U.S. as dystopia or
> not. It's been YOU, all the way.
This is a cop out. If your only contribution is to sit back and attempt
logic-chopping through selective quotation and deliberate misinterpretation
you're not even worth talking to. Do you or do you not believe the US to be
a society that is generally dystopian? If it helps, my view is that this
description applies to many societies including, increasingly, my own
country.
> > > B) The U.S. is dystopian --- But it is realized that IF
> > > it is dystopian there is a higher rate of violence.
> >
> > Or, we recognize that it has a higher rate of violence as a result of
the
> > dystopia.
> >
> Huh????? 'Recognize,' 'Realize,' -- are you trying to
> be pedantic now? My words were very similar to
> yours, hardly requiring a 'or.'
Sorry, you're right. Mea culpa.
> > > So how do we COPE with this higher rate of violence,
> > > since our purpose is obviously to reduce any
> > > dystopian function in our society? It can hardly be
> > > assumed that providing MORE generous sentencing
> > > to those causing violence will reduce that higher rate
> > > of violence.
> >
> > Who said anything about "more generous"?
>
> Hello... you don't believe a sentence other than the DP
> is 'more generous'? You'll need to be more specific,
> because I think most people believe ANY penalty
> other than the DP is 'more generous.'
It's not a question of generosity, which implies the bestowing of something
desirable. I doubt that anyone thinks that incarceration in prison,
particularly some of your "super-max" facilities to be desirable. It's a
question of having sensible sentences that admit the possibility of reform
or rehabilitation of the offender.
> > The issue is of allowing hope,
> > while guarding against recidivism.
>
> Why? Why waste precious resources on allowing hope
> to those we know to be hopeless, to the best of our
> human abilities to discern. Is it necessary that we
> see HOPE in ALL? To me that's absurd, and senseless.
It is ESSENTIAL to being human that hope exists in my view. If it doesn't we
are no better than animals.
> Why not focus the energies we would focus on the
> 'hopeless,' instead on those who we perceive have
> some hope? And you'll ALWAYS lose the battle in
> an argument against recidivism, because of the
> simple truism that NO executed murderer has ever
> murdered again. There is no other penalty for any
> other crime that can guarantee that low a rate of
> recidivism.
True, but recidivism is not the only issue. Absolute incapacitation is not
necessary. The problem is that people tend to get hysterical on this issue.
If we harm several thousand people who WON'T be recidivists in order to
prevent one from so doing this is not a desirable outcome. I know you don't
agree, so spare me the rant please. It's good to see that you take advice
BTW. Mr D was right on this one.
As a thought, we're still discussing conventional prisons versus death,
there have been some pretty large technological advances in recent years you
know.
> > One of the resasons that
> > people disregard
> > societal rules in the first place is that they feel society offers them
no
> > hope.
> >
> How does that affect the DP??? It's simply a rather
> trite appeal to feel SORRY for those who disregard
> societal rules.
See above.
> > >We ALL know of the 'spoiled child'
> > > syndrome.Unless clear lines of behavior are drawn,
> > > a child will ALWAYS push the envelope of behavior.
> >
> > I have two children, and I have never raised a hand to either.
>
> You don't draw clear lines of behavior??? How do they
> KNOW what they may or may not do. It has nothing
> to do with corporal punishment. It has to do with
> understanding the LIMITS, and the penalties (whether
> it is simply a time-out), that will result should those limits
> be exceeded.
>
> > Both are
> > regarded by those who know them as being extremely
> > polite, well-mannered children. There are more ways
> > of instilling respect for rules than violent
> > punishments.
> >
> Spare me, please. We are speaking of LIMITS. I do
> not expect your children to be murderers.
We ARE speaking of limits and I have imposed those limits on my children
without resorting to violence. You see violence as a necessary part of a
sentencing regime. Why not introduce public whippings as well?
> > >So the contrary position must be seen as reasonable.
> >
> > NO!
> >
> yes. Are you saying we DON'T need to establish
> limits of conduct in society? Isn't that why we have
> laws at all?
Don't be foolish.
This goes to my point; the existence of the death penalty brings out the
worst in people. Thank you for demonstrating it so beautifully.
> > > So in general, if the U.S. is not dystopian, your
> > > argument is flawed. If the U.S. is dystopian, your
> > > argument that the 'DP is flawed' does not make
> > > logical sense, because you have admitted that
> > > it is a 'symptom' and not a 'cause' of that dystopian
> > > society.
> >
> > See above.
> >
> I've seen it, I remain unconvinced, and I am more
> certain that you lack the ammunition to convince me.
> But if you stick around long enough, you may begin
> to support the DP, with MY powers of persuasion. :-)
Only if I don't fall into a coma first :)
> Seriously, I wish to change no person's view. I wish
> only to present mine, and naturally it collides with
> the views of most others here. That doesn't bother
> me, since it gives me an opportunity to more closely
> examine my own view, which is actually WHY I post
> here. I am seen as highly argumentative, but it goes
> with the territory. Were I not to be, I would be
> overwhelmed... not with logic but with shear force,
> as you have tried to do with your simplistic view
> of the 'rights' of a human, dead or alive.
You have every right to express your opinion and to argue in support of it
as robustly as you wish. As it happens, I have similar motives and it is why
I am such a supporter of USENET. It allows me to converse with people about
topics that would otherwise be regarded as "social dynamite" and hence
rarely discussed except academically. If I change an opinion it is a bonus,
but certainly not to be expected.
I do take exception to your suggestion that my argument has not been
logical. You have repeatedly tried to poke holes in it and have not
succeeded, despite blatant misrepresentation, I suggest that if anyone is
guilty of a brute force approach it is you. I can't recall the last time I
spoke to someone as long-winded.
> > >Thus, its elimination will have NO effect
> > > on changes in the dystopian society. Quite
> > > seriously... fix the dystopian aspects of the
> > > society, and the DP will wither on the vine.
> >
> > Bingo. Precisely, Watson. this is one of those shining
> > nuggets that makes it
> > worthwhile mining your posts PV.
> >
> But I've NEVER said otherwise. Ask ANYONE here.
> If the homicide rate in the U.S. approached that
> which it is in most European nations, I'd have no
> objection whatsoever to abolishing the DP in the
> U.S. In fact, there was a poster from Japan, with
> a handle 'loverain' who once asked about the DP
> in Japan, and I told him Japan should abolish it,
> because it was UNNECESSARY in that society.
So your thesis is that the US is so inherently dysfuntional that it has no
alternative but to kill its citizens. What a terrible indictment of the
country you live in.
> > > Hoping to 'cure' a dystopian society, by abolishing
> > > something that is a 'symptom' WILL NOT cure
> > > the disease.
> >
> > The problem is that there is little attempt to cure the disease and the
> > symptom is regarded as a positive outcome.
> >
> I think we are making slow progress in curing the
> disease, but it is rather insidious and I've mentioned
> the things that are insidious about it many times in
> the past here. Most of all -- DISENFRANCHISEMENT.
> There is NOTHING worse in the U.S. than RACIAL
> INJUSTICE. Until we become aware that ALL MEN
> are brothers, we are a nation without honor. It is
> deeper than any SOCIAL PROGRAMS can repair.
> Those are only cosmetic. It depends on the MIND
> of each of us.
>
> But in respect to your argument regarding the DP,
> I can only say that, in the end I believe your two
> arguments -- the DP is cheaper, and U.S. society
> is dystopian, actually serve to work AGAINST any
> belief that it should be abolished in the U.S.
"There are none so blind" etc. This does raise what I have tried to
introduce earlier, which is that my objection to the death penalty is global
and not directed specifically at the US case. The only the US even enters
the debate is because that is what YOU want to discuss.
I'm heartened to see that you're not convinced of its use globally.
> > > PV
--
Cheers,
Craig
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht
<snip>
>Hardly, sport. You've claimed if we talk about them
>we are 'whining.' That certainly means that
>they do not COUNT to you.
No, Sir, that again is what you'd LIKE to see in me. I merely see alot of
existences whining about dead people unknown to them, and this only if the
offender is on death row.
Tell me.. do dead
>murder victims have 'rights'? Do ANY dead at all
>have 'rights.'? This is of course a trick question.
...for to justify executions.
The dead CAN have no secular rights, for the plain reason that they are not
EXISTENT on our plane of perception. They took their rights with them.
There's to say alot about this strawman "Rights of the victim", strongly
reminding on the material presents and even living humans buried along with
the Pharaohs. You substituted this/them by the offender's life. But moot to
discuss after you do not want to understand me.
<flames snipped>
J.
P.s. I owe you nothing and need for my learning of your language absolutely
no excuse from you. You simply can not answer even one deeper question about
the DP and nothing else. You wrote to Jane: "The DP is God", and so is it:
Your ratio ends where the DP begins.
Jürgen
Jürgen schrieb in Nachricht <9vsp92$dq1$04$1...@news.t-online.com>...
>
>P.s. I owe you nothing ......
OoOoOoOoOops.................of course I owe you something: A FINE
DIGÉSTIF!!! (Besides: not written by me, thus, understandable even for you.)
Jürgen
Richard Jackson schrieb in Nachricht
<8cb86b49.01121...@posting.google.com>...
>> (I hope my friend PV, the compassionate retentionist that always denies
the
>> brutalization-effect of the DP, may read this the original post from
Mike.
>> Seldom I read a so good characterization of the purpose and motive of the
>> US-DP, including the WANTED torturing aspect, that aPV permanently claims
to
>> be non-existent.)
>
>Because it fits your perception of what the death penalty is in the
>US, you attempt to apply this idea to all retentionists, Jürgen. Not
>only is that way too simplistic, it is not reality. Retentionists,
>like abolitionists, have several reasons for supporting the death
>penalty. Mike's view is one reason, but not the only one.
>
First, nice to see you back, Richard. Second, re-read the paragraph. I not
and never claimedALL retentionists to fit in this idea. PV however claimed
the ABSENCE of hatred in the DP a multitude of times, and even more often he
described this aspect as a TURD, CRAPOLA or YADA YADA YADA. Hence I proved
him wrong.
<snip>
>The appeals merely are safeguards for the DP-system
>> itself and all the persons partitioning in the death-sentence (DS),
>> safeguards for to keep clear the conscience of anyone concerned with a
>> death-sentence or execution. The confirmation of the DS by as many
instances
>> as possible allows the single individual to pass the buck of his own
>> responsibility to "society", i.e. to a mass of affirmators to his
individual
>> part in the decision to kill a human.
>
>Of course, they could also be there to ensure we do not execute anyone
>except someone who is guilty. Of course, that idea would not fit your
>agenda either, would it Jürgen?
Richard, single cases point out that without a skilly and insisting defense,
to hire and pay by private persons, the appeals system - i.e. the STATE -
does plain nothing for to get anything straight.
>> The reasoning for this admittedly provocating statement above: Whether
any
>> appeal is sucessful or not depends not anyway upon the mere existence of
the
>> appeal but upon the convict's DEFENSE and their qualification. These now
are
>> NOT a concern of the appeal but of PRIVATE persons. Thus, the appeal
itself
>> and what in it's frame is provided AUTOMATICALLY, by the JUSTICE SYSTEM
>> ITSELF, is not ANYWAY aiming a commutation of the sentence or even an
>> exoneration.
>
>There are two different issues you mix here, Jürgen. Appeals are
>NEVER aimed at providing a commutation for a correct finding. If the
>sentence is commutted to a lesser sentence, it is because the original
>finding was found to be incorrect for one legal reason or another, and
>a lesser finding put in its place by the court or at retrial.
That addresses in no way my perception. The statement stands: The appeals as
a stand-alone without a skilly and private-paid defense neither are
interested in exonerating innocents on DR nor are they eager to reconsider
any way too harsh sentences.
<snip>
>
>Mike isn't playing with a full deck, perhaps, Jürgen. His reasoning
>IS one of the reasons we DO have courts, and an extensive review of
>all capital murder trials. I make no apologies for him, but then some
>of your response isn't up to your best either.
>
Richard, I pondered quite a while how to reply here and found no other path
for viable. Mike is seriously concerned with the topic and wrote formerly
also posts pointing out that he does explicitely not cling to 'Kill'em all
and let HIm sort them out', and this already makes it worth to discuss.
The idea however to make the related of any death-sentenced pay the STATE'S
legal costs for to kill their guilty related additionally to the
defense-costs that they have to afford anyway I found for extremely
gruesome, and exactly this I tried to express as moderately as it ever is
possible to express an emotion.
Jürgen
P.s. --A short warning: You should know, The Very Master of AAD-P declared
me for the pariah around here. While it plays no part for me for that I
already *am* in disgrace this could happen to you, too, by paying too much
attention to my posts. So be careful! ;-)
Richard Jackson
That is assuming there has not been a comprehensive investigation
PRIOR to the charges being made.
>
> >> The reasoning for this admittedly provocating statement above: Whether
> any
> >> appeal is sucessful or not depends not anyway upon the mere existence of
> the
> >> appeal but upon the convict's DEFENSE and their qualification. These now
> are
> >> NOT a concern of the appeal but of PRIVATE persons. Thus, the appeal
> itself
> >> and what in it's frame is provided AUTOMATICALLY, by the JUSTICE SYSTEM
> >> ITSELF, is not ANYWAY aiming a commutation of the sentence or even an
> >> exoneration.
> >
> >There are two different issues you mix here, Jürgen. Appeals are
> >NEVER aimed at providing a commutation for a correct finding. If the
> >sentence is commutted to a lesser sentence, it is because the original
> >finding was found to be incorrect for one legal reason or another, and
> >a lesser finding put in its place by the court or at retrial.
>
> That addresses in no way my perception. The statement stands: The appeals as
> a stand-alone without a skilly and private-paid defense neither are
> interested in exonerating innocents on DR nor are they eager to reconsider
> any way too harsh sentences.
The first statement is not exactly correct. No reasonable person
either in defense or prosecution wishes to see an innocent charged
with any crime, much less capital murder. I guess there are people
who would put any bad actor in prison just to "solve" a murder, but
I've seldom met such. I have met over zealous investigators, but they
are usually tempered by being paired with older, more experienced
people.
The second happens all the time. It is a major reason so many people
have their sentences changed in appeal while on death row. That, in
and of itself, speaks.
>
> <snip>
> >
> >Mike isn't playing with a full deck, perhaps, Jürgen. His reasoning
> >IS one of the reasons we DO have courts, and an extensive review of
> >all capital murder trials. I make no apologies for him, but then some
> >of your response isn't up to your best either.
> >
> Richard, I pondered quite a while how to reply here and found no other path
> for viable. Mike is seriously concerned with the topic and wrote formerly
> also posts pointing out that he does explicitely not cling to 'Kill'em all
> and let HIm sort them out', and this already makes it worth to discuss.
>
> The idea however to make the related of any death-sentenced pay the STATE'S
> legal costs for to kill their guilty related additionally to the
> defense-costs that they have to afford anyway I found for extremely
> gruesome, and exactly this I tried to express as moderately as it ever is
> possible to express an emotion.
Fair enough.
>
> Jürgen
>
> P.s. --A short warning: You should know, The Very Master of AAD-P declared
> me for the pariah around here. While it plays no part for me for that I
> already *am* in disgrace this could happen to you, too, by paying too much
> attention to my posts. So be careful! ;-)
You must think I really care if he likes me or not. ;-O
--
Richard
A Planet Visitor
"Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c217b80$0$26277$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Shit PV, 10k to tell me you disagree, They're getting longer still and you
> still persist in discussing what you feel I should have said rather than
> what I DID say.
>
respect to 'human rights' and your claim that the U.S.
society is dystopian, and your feeling that the DP is
a 'symptom' of that dystopia. What have I missed?
Clip whatever you feel necessary.
No, quite frankly it is not 'we agree to disagree.' It is - YOU
disagree with the LAWS that society has provided which
show that 'rights' exist PAST the death of the holder of
those 'rights.' You - now try to pass it off, with some
meaningless British comedy show. It's very poor on your
part, and would be better if you either left it totally untouched,
or just admitted that your original statement was not correct.
> > Regardless of whether the person did or did not. The
> > LAW provided for its existence past the death of
> > the holder of the copyright.
> >I've had similar arguments
> > from some abolitionists when faced with COLD FACT.
> > And it sickens me. You have no idea how hard I fought
> > over the principle of 'society self-defense,' where others
> > claimed no such thing existed. That rather died down
> > when confronted with Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, but
> > I still see idiots unwilling to accept the TRUTH. Please
> > do not join that crowd by ignoring what is plain to see.
> > Simply move on, and do not argue this point any further,
> > if you expect to maintain any credibility here. In addition,
> > this is exactly what you said "Have a brief look at
> > copyright law as a very simple example, as well as the
> > laws of property and defamation. All of these laws
> > extinguish rights upon death." That's exactly what
> > I did look at. Now, obviously you were talking through
> > your hat, but you just don't know when to quit.
>
> Not quite true WRT copyright PV, and you still haven't addressed the
> property laws or defamation laws.
>
Hello... I suppose next you'll claim I need to show 'human
rights' SPECIFICALLY pass to another. You really need
to fess up to the fact that it is THERE, in black and white,
irrefutable, except with the meaningless drivel you continue
to argue. I'm beginning to believe you are similar to
others, who find their argument undercut, and do not
know how to extract themselves, but would die before
admitting their argument HAS BEEN UNDERCUT. A
huge ego, accompanied by the inability to admit some
flaw in your thinking will not serve you well here in the
future, since we ALL misspeak at one time or another.
(except for Earl, of course, who is God).
> > > > Nonetheless. I think we have reached a point that
> > > > we need to examine YOUR view regarding the DP,
> > > > irrespective of MY view. I believe your main argument
> > > > is
> > > >
> > > > 1) The U.S. is generally dystopian.
> > >
> > > The US is dystopian for many. I have no doubt that it some consider it
> to be
> > > Utopia in their particular circumstances. These people are rarely
> > > responsible for the commission of violent crime. On the whole I would
> agree
> > > that the socio-economic structure of the US is generally dystopian.
> > >
> > Here's one particular thing you said "Your country is
> > presently pretty dystopian for millions of people."
>
> I stand by it.
>
Of course you do... I never said you didn't.
Crap... meaningless crap. First you say it has nothing
to do with it, and then you say it is a 'form' of it.
> > And I'm sure I can find other statements you made
> > similar to that in our present dialog. You now form the
> > premise that injustice CAN be cured by this 'feedback
> > process,' you've suddenly come up with.
>
> No, I don't. Please don't try to put words in my mouth, I prefer to retain
> that right for myself.
>
Don't worry... you do yourself enough damage with your
own words. I don't need to put others in your mouth to
show you have little understanding of the DP in the U.S.
> >Quite clearly,
> > there IS NO 'feedback process.' It is simply social
> > injustice ==> increased violence ==> higher murder
> > rate ==> perception of need for greater penalties ==>
> > use of DP. You simply cannot draw the arrows in the
> > other direction, or think you can draw a loop.
>
> You may well be right.
>
Then how can the DP be a form of social injustice,
which is what you've just said?
> >You
> > yourself, said it's a SYMPTOM. So can you make up
> > your mind? Or do you change it every time you come
> > to a paradox?
>
> No, I said I have a suspicion that a feedback mechanism exists. I have no
> evidence either way, but it would seem unlikely that it doesn't
>
I get it. You don't KNOW if one exists, but you THINK
it might, although you have no EVIDENCE that it does.
What a load.
> > >
> > > 5. Reducing social injustice is the single most effective way to reduce
> the
> > > incidence of crime, including violent crime.
> > >
> > No disagreement from me. You will note that you did not use
> > the word DP. Thus it seem immaterial to the general
> > argument. It's simplistically obvious that reducing social
> > injustice will reduce crime.
> >
> > > 6. A "civil" society has a responsibility to at least try to transcend
> the
> > > flaws of individuals. This is a basic tenet IMHO.
> >
> > I totally disagree with that. We have NO responsibility
> > to make APOLOGIES to individuals who have demonstrated
> > flaws which cause HARM to others.
>
> Quite right. Go to the top of the class.
>
Let me get this straight. You make a statement. I totally
disagree with that statement. You then say 'quite
right.' What the HELL are you talking about?
> > Never. Too many
> > have OVERCOME without demonstrating such flaws, to
> > claim we must apologize to those who do not. Were
> > we to believe we need to apologize to the dysfunctional,
> > we'd do a great disservice to those who have remained
> > functional, in spite of social injustice, and disenfranchisement.
> > And that has nothing to do with a dystopian or utopian
> > viewpoint.
>
> Great. So you believe the fact that some manage to struggle
> through despite
> everything is valid reason to abandon those whom we (as a society) have
> damaged. What a guy.
>
No, I am saying we should not abandon THOSE others,
to make apologies, and try to salvage that which is
not salvageable.
> > > In other words, I expect
> > > my society to behave better than I am capable of doing as I am subject
> to
> > > emotional weighting of decision-making. I expect our lawmakers to be
> > > able in
> > > the collective to disregard the emotional pulls and create truly just
> laws.
> > > Of course, I'm often disappointed :(.
> > >
> > Well, this bears on YOUR expectations. That hardly
> > demonstrates any connection to the DP as an issue, but
> > simply your disapproval of it. Certainly there are many
> > that approve of it, as well.
>
> There are. Are you saying that you don't believe in the responsibility of
> the State to transcend personal failings?
No, I do not believe the State has a responsibility to transcend
personal failings of its members when such failing have
caused harm to others. By doing so, we are placing greater
value on the member that failed, then we are on the victim,
who was blameless. I believe the responsibility of the State
is to insure we are all responsible to each other, and to
ourselves.
> I hate to do it, but the results
> of this belief within your society are to be seen in the Waco massacre and
> going back a bit further, the Ohio State debacle. In both of those instances
> too much authority and power was given to individuals without the
> checks and
> balances of the State. There are many other examples. OTOH, lest
> I be seen
> as completely one-eyed, your country has many positive examples of the
> transcendence of the State, including the integration efforts and
> Affirmative Action.
>
That's just so much bullshit, yet again. I doubt whether
YOU know what you're trying to say here, except something
negative about the U.S. Certainly it has NOTHING to do
with the DP.
> > > 7. There are alternative sentences available, along with alternative
> > > technological solutions that make the death penalty unnecessary,
> > > and are not
> > > in themselves as "unjust" as the death penalty.
> > >
> > But this of course is why I provided my list for one thing.
> > It's an absolute certainty that the DP prevents at least
> > SOME new murders of innocents. Given my list, it's
> > inconceivable that from the entire SUM of all those ~740
> > executed murderers in ~25 year at least one new murder
> > would have been committed by at least ONE of them,
> > had they NOT been executed. That's almost a mathematical
> > certainty. Further, in a dystopia it is obvious that a more
> > clear statement must be made by society that it will NOT
> > accept such high levels of violence, and will act in a
> > manner which it considers moral and effective to reduce
> > such violence.
>
> Not necessarily. I would argue that such a statement is probably inevitable
> in a dystopia, but only if the society has chosen to ignore the possibility
> of utopia. In your country (and mine for that matter), those who make the
> rules live in a pretty utopian society, while those who break them, don't.
> The rules are designed to ensure that situation continues. The
> death penalty
> is an expression of fear and loathing
Don't be absurd. The DP is about 'public safety.' That's
the way this dialog started, and that's the way it ends.
ALL penalties are about 'public safety.' Read the damn
criminal statutes to understand that, and quit inserting
YOUR definitions.
> and as such can be nothing but
> negative in its overall effect.
What!!! You are supposing that a recidivism rate of
0% is a negative??? What planet are YOU from?
> On top of everything else, there are technologies presently available which
> can confine an individual within a small radius and are extremely reliable.
> These are simple and effective and I'm not sure why they aren't
> more widely
> used.
>
An example which is to me totally immoral, much more so
than the DP, and without a doubt less certain to prevent
recidivism than the DP. Seriously, if YOU were faced
with the choice that you've offered or the DP, which would
YOU choose?
Sorry, I do not back-channel communicate. EVER.
> > > > If these are not your true feelings, then we can discuss
> > > > the comments you've made that lead me to believe
> > > > this is what you feel.
> > >
> > > These are my feelings, albeit a somewhat abbreviated summary..
> > >
> > But throughout those feelings, the only thing I've been
> > able to glean is that you see the U.S. as generally
> > dystopian. Violence follows that. The DP follows
> > that. It seems rather the way things SHOULD be,
> > to me... rather than what you feel is -- The U.S. is
> > generally dystopian. Violence follows that. The
> > DP should be abolished. Sorry, but I do not see that
> > connection.
>
> My view of the current situation is: the US is dystopian >addressing the
> dystopia is not seen as a priority> crime is a problem as a
> result>regressive sentencing regimes are introduced> the death penalty is
> the ultimate regressive penalty.
>
And of course, even were your entire analysis to be
true, which I do not grant you... the key is in the
second step. Address the dystopia. We will not kill
the weed by cultivating the leaves. The weed only
grows stronger.
> My preferred outcome is: the US is dystopian> social injustice is seen as a
> high priority> dystopian conditions are reduced> crime rate is reduced> the
> death penalty is abolished
>
Nothing wrong with that view.
> > > > So if this IS your view, let's examine the ONLY logical
> > > > possibilities --
> > > > A) The U.S. is NOT dystopian --- If that were the case,
> > > > your entire argument fails, from the first principle.
> > >
> > > No, because the first principle is that injustice results in violent
> crime
> > > increase. Let's examine YOUR position. Do you argue that the
> > > US approaches a
> > > utopian society? If so, on what grounds?
> > >
> > I'm not arguing anything. I'm examining YOUR
> > argument. If the U.S. is NOT dystopian your
> > argument makes little sense, because it is based on
> > the U.S. being generally a dystopia. Why examine
> > my position when I haven't even GIVEN ONE?
> > I see this generally as an attempt to divert from
> > the examination of YOUR argument, since I have
> > no argument regarding the U.S. as dystopia or
> > not. It's been YOU, all the way.
>
> This is a cop out. If your only contribution is to sit back and attempt
> logic-chopping through selective quotation and deliberate misinterpretation
> you're not even worth talking to. Do you or do you not believe the US to be
> a society that is generally dystopian? If it helps, my view is that this
> description applies to many societies including, increasingly, my own
> country.
>
The point was that I have GIVEN my opinion over and
over here. It is not like it doesn't EXIST. We are,
as in all examinations, trying to ISOLATE particular
examples and look at them without outside parameters
affecting them. If you wish to examine my opinion,
state what you think it is (as I did with yours), and we
can go over any items I might disagree with. But it
makes no sense, when we are examining YOUR
position, to throw us off the track of that examination
by asking what MY position is.
Quite seriously, I see that as a total waste of time and
energy in some cases. Most especially murders which
involve serial killers, pedophile killers, paid-for-hire killers,
or those who would murder 5 teenagers in a tastee-freeze
robbery for no other reason then to eliminate witnesses.
It all depends on what your opinion believes is 'sensible.'
I don't think the mandatory ACCEPTANCE of the possibility
of reform or rehabilitation of some murderers is sensible
at all.
> > > The issue is of allowing hope,
> > > while guarding against recidivism.
> >
> > Why? Why waste precious resources on allowing hope
> > to those we know to be hopeless, to the best of our
> > human abilities to discern. Is it necessary that we
> > see HOPE in ALL? To me that's absurd, and senseless.
>
> It is ESSENTIAL to being human that hope exists in my view.
> If it doesn't we
> are no better than animals.
>
Hello.. what animal MURDERS its own kind? The
extrapolation of the DP into a belief that it makes us
no better than animals is absurd, because a Justice
System doesn't exist in any of the animal kingdom,
except in the human species. You might as well
say that monkeys don't have trials, so why should
we?
> > Why not focus the energies we would focus on the
> > 'hopeless,' instead on those who we perceive have
> > some hope? And you'll ALWAYS lose the battle in
> > an argument against recidivism, because of the
> > simple truism that NO executed murderer has ever
> > murdered again. There is no other penalty for any
> > other crime that can guarantee that low a rate of
> > recidivism.
>
> True, but recidivism is not the only issue. Absolute incapacitation is not
> necessary.
But that's simply making an opinion into a perception of
fact. In fact, all penalties involve incapacitation to a degree.
Prison sentences are TEMPORARY incapacitations.
L wop and the DP are supposedly PERMANENT
incapacitation (of course, the DP is the ONLY ABSOLUTE
incapacitation). But no evidence exists that it is NOT
necessary.
Because whipping doesn't incapacitate. If it did, I'm
certain we'd use it. We are speaking of limits that
SOCIETY imposes in respect to MURDER, if we are
discussing the DP. You impose limits on your
children in respect to the DAMAGE they can do to
others and to themselves. Yet that damage hardly
reaches the level of your child behaving violently I do
believe. But ALL limits can't be the SAME. What
would you do if one of your children was of a
violent nature, perhaps hitting the other with an
iron object, on many occasions. totally out of
control? Suppose the child killed animals such as
pets? Now YOU might not resort to VIOLENT methods
of discipline, but you'd certainly not limit your
discipline to a time-out, and would probably seek
professional advice. Limits adjust to the act itself,
and not some arbitrary lines for ALL acts.
> > > >So the contrary position must be seen as reasonable.
> > >
> > > NO!
> > >
> > yes. Are you saying we DON'T need to establish
> > limits of conduct in society? Isn't that why we have
> > laws at all?
>
> Don't be foolish.
>
Hardly.
I felt you would say that, but it is not relevant to the
fact that those OPPOSED to the DP, are just as
extreme as those in favor of the DP, which was my
point. What brings about the existence of the DP,
is MURDER. What brings out the worst in PEOPLE
is demonstrations of zealotry and maniacal behavior
toward any practice. Certainly the current wave of
violent demonstrations by those opposed to 'globalization'
shows that to be true. It doesn't take the DP to bring
out violent behavior, it only takes those who wish to
be violent.
Certainly your argument regarding 'rights' is
hardly logical, given proof to the contrary. My
argument has generally been based on facts
that I can present, such as the 'list.' I've seen
nothing from you except opinion, to be perfectly
frank.
>
> > > >Thus, its elimination will have NO effect
> > > > on changes in the dystopian society. Quite
> > > > seriously... fix the dystopian aspects of the
> > > > society, and the DP will wither on the vine.
> > >
> > > Bingo. Precisely, Watson. this is one of those shining
> > > nuggets that makes it
> > > worthwhile mining your posts PV.
> > >
> > But I've NEVER said otherwise. Ask ANYONE here.
> > If the homicide rate in the U.S. approached that
> > which it is in most European nations, I'd have no
> > objection whatsoever to abolishing the DP in the
> > U.S. In fact, there was a poster from Japan, with
> > a handle 'loverain' who once asked about the DP
> > in Japan, and I told him Japan should abolish it,
> > because it was UNNECESSARY in that society.
>
> So your thesis is that the US is so inherently dysfuntional that it has no
> alternative but to kill its citizens. What a terrible indictment of the
> country you live in.
>
I rather think of it as your country being so dysfunctional
that you would like sheep allow others to make your
choices for you. I think it's rather dysfunctional to
assume that 'NO murderer commits a crime so horrendous
that would presume he should not forfeit his life.' I see
that as making a rather disgusting apology for murder
itself. I see it as rather immoral to our existence as a
species to say we must concern ourselves with a man
who has murdered, more than we would concern
ourselves with not just his last victim but the possibility
of his future victim as well. In effect, when it comes
to an examination of dysfunction, it is all in the 'eye of
the beholder.'
Generally, I've found your argument simply to an
opinionated view, lacking any substance whatsoever
in respect to the DP. Further, I found your denial
of clear evidence that 'rights' exist past the death
of the holder of those 'rights' to be deceitful in
intent, unwilling to accept the obvious. And lastly,
I've deduced that your entire argument, although
you would hope to deny it, is simply you hoping to
provide a forum for 'U.S. bashing,' quite independent
of any rational examination of the DP itself.
PV
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
>
Exador
If t makes you feel better, I accept your point about copyright extending
for a period regardless of the status of the original copyright holder. Will
you now accept my point that this is meaningless in terms of the original
holder if they are dead? Dopn't answer that, I know you won't.
You still haven't addressed the property or defamation laws.
I said it was a symptom. It is also an injustice in and of itself.
Abolishing any given form of injustice doesn't abolish all injustice. No
contradiction at all, except in your limited thinking.
I have never suggested that we have any responsibility to apologise to or
for offenders. You put up a straw man and then destroyed it. I agree with
your statement on this point. It also had nothing whatsoever to do with the
point as usual. To help you out, I'll reiterate the point;
"6. A "civil" society has a responsibility to at least try to transcend
the flaws of individuals. This is a basic tenet IMHO".
> > > Never. Too many
> > > have OVERCOME without demonstrating such flaws, to
> > > claim we must apologize to those who do not. Were
> > > we to believe we need to apologize to the dysfunctional,
> > > we'd do a great disservice to those who have remained
> > > functional, in spite of social injustice, and disenfranchisement.
> > > And that has nothing to do with a dystopian or utopian
> > > viewpoint.
> >
> > Great. So you believe the fact that some manage to struggle
> > through despite
> > everything is valid reason to abandon those whom we (as a society) have
> > damaged. What a guy.
> >
> No, I am saying we should not abandon THOSE others,
> to make apologies, and try to salvage that which is
> not salvageable.
Nor am I. I have never suggested such a thing. I DO suggest that continual
evaluation of offenders is an essential requirement of any valid system.
> > > > In other words, I expect
> > > > my society to behave better than I am capable of doing as I am
subject
> > to
> > > > emotional weighting of decision-making. I expect our lawmakers to be
> > > > able in
> > > > the collective to disregard the emotional pulls and create truly
just
> > laws.
> > > > Of course, I'm often disappointed :(.
> > > >
> > > Well, this bears on YOUR expectations. That hardly
> > > demonstrates any connection to the DP as an issue, but
> > > simply your disapproval of it. Certainly there are many
> > > that approve of it, as well.
> >
> > There are. Are you saying that you don't believe in the responsibility
of
> > the State to transcend personal failings?
>
> No, I do not believe the State has a responsibility to transcend
> personal failings of its members when such failing have
> caused harm to others. By doing so, we are placing greater
> value on the member that failed, then we are on the victim,
> who was blameless.
How? Justice is justice. We can perfectly well accept that the victim was
wronged, without in any way seeking retribution from the offender. This
still fails to address my point about the responsibility of society to be
better behaved than individuals. I'm using simple words now PV, please let
me know if you don't understand.
>I believe the responsibility of the State
> is to insure we are all responsible to each other, and to
> ourselves.
This is certainly one role, but it doesn't address the responsibility of the
State to behave as well as the best of us, rather than the worst.
> > I hate to do it, but the results
> > of this belief within your society are to be seen in the Waco massacre
and
> > going back a bit further, the Ohio State debacle. In both of those
instances
> > too much authority and power was given to individuals without the
> > checks and
> > balances of the State. There are many other examples. OTOH, lest
> > I be seen
> > as completely one-eyed, your country has many positive examples of the
> > transcendence of the State, including the integration efforts and
> > Affirmative Action.
> >
> That's just so much bullshit, yet again. I doubt whether
> YOU know what you're trying to say here, except something
> negative about the U.S. Certainly it has NOTHING to do
> with the DP.
Funny that anything you don't want to acknowledge is bullshit.
You make this point for me later in your post.
> > and as such can be nothing but
> > negative in its overall effect.
>
> What!!! You are supposing that a recidivism rate of
> 0% is a negative??? What planet are YOU from?
Refer to my earlier comments about the alternatives.
> > On top of everything else, there are technologies presently available
which
> > can confine an individual within a small radius and are extremely
reliable.
> > These are simple and effective and I'm not sure why they aren't
> > more widely
> > used.
> >
> An example which is to me totally immoral, much more so
> than the DP, and without a doubt less certain to prevent
> recidivism than the DP. Seriously, if YOU were faced
> with the choice that you've offered or the DP, which would
> YOU choose?
What choice do you think I've offered? I'm not referring to chains or
legirons or any of the implements of torture. If the aim is to prevent
movement there are devices available that would administer any number of
temporarily disabling treatments in the event of either straying too far
from a point, or outside a boundary or even on coming too close to others.
perhaps you could put your EE cap on and tell us why these are not workable.
Fair enough, the offer's open.
> > > > > If these are not your true feelings, then we can discuss
> > > > > the comments you've made that lead me to believe
> > > > > this is what you feel.
> > > >
> > > > These are my feelings, albeit a somewhat abbreviated summary..
> > > >
> > > But throughout those feelings, the only thing I've been
> > > able to glean is that you see the U.S. as generally
> > > dystopian. Violence follows that. The DP follows
> > > that. It seems rather the way things SHOULD be,
> > > to me... rather than what you feel is -- The U.S. is
> > > generally dystopian. Violence follows that. The
> > > DP should be abolished. Sorry, but I do not see that
> > > connection.
> >
> > My view of the current situation is: the US is dystopian >addressing the
> > dystopia is not seen as a priority> crime is a problem as a
> > result>regressive sentencing regimes are introduced> the death penalty
is
> > the ultimate regressive penalty.
> >
> And of course, even were your entire analysis to be
> true, which I do not grant you... the key is in the
> second step. Address the dystopia. We will not kill
> the weed by cultivating the leaves. The weed only
> grows stronger.
We most certainly won't kill the weeds by destroying the crop.
This I think is the central area of our differences. I haold this to be
essential as a basic principle of a fair penal system. As I have said
repeatedly, make them earn release, but hold it out as a carrot. A stick
will only go so far.
> > > > The issue is of allowing hope,
> > > > while guarding against recidivism.
> > >
> > > Why? Why waste precious resources on allowing hope
> > > to those we know to be hopeless, to the best of our
> > > human abilities to discern. Is it necessary that we
> > > see HOPE in ALL? To me that's absurd, and senseless.
> >
> > It is ESSENTIAL to being human that hope exists in my view.
> > If it doesn't we
> > are no better than animals.
> >
> Hello.. what animal MURDERS its own kind? The
> extrapolation of the DP into a belief that it makes us
> no better than animals is absurd, because a Justice
> System doesn't exist in any of the animal kingdom,
> except in the human species. You might as well
> say that monkeys don't have trials, so why should
> we?
Animals don't have hope. It's one of the things that defines humanity. As an
aside, have you ever seen what a tomcat does to kittens if given the chance?
I certainly wouldn't hit the child that was behaving in that way, because I
would lose the authority to censur if I acted in a similar way.
Too true.
This is a forum to exchange ideas. We are certainly doing that. I have
argued logically for my case, and you have consistently misrepresented my
posts in an effort to dicredit. I have seen only one or two logical replies
from you to anything I've said. I have never suggested that my comments were
anything other than opinion. Yours too for that matter, the "list" was
irrelevant, we all know that mistakes are made, which is one of the reasons
I don't support the death penalty - anywhere.
It has nothing to do with murder per se. If we lived in a different society
murder might be seen as a relatively minor offense. It has to do with
gradation. You see murder as an absolute line that defines an irredeemable
person, I don't.
I see it as rather immoral to our existence as a
> species to say we must concern ourselves with a man
> who has murdered, more than we would concern
> ourselves with not just his last victim but the possibility
> of his future victim as well. In effect, when it comes
> to an examination of dysfunction, it is all in the 'eye of
> the beholder.'
Quite right.
Not true PV. My opposition to the death penalty is general, you keep
bringing it back to the specific US situation. I then respond accordingly. I
actually think it's inevitable that the death penalty will be implemented in
the US, for cultural rather than logical reasons, but inevitable none the
less. I do feel that the US is diminished by its use however.
>
> PV
>
>
--
Cheers,
Craig
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9vsp92$dq1$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht
> <2KbU7.129650$oj3.22...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>...
>
> <snip>
>
> >Hardly, sport. You've claimed if we talk about them
> >we are 'whining.' That certainly means that
> >they do not COUNT to you.
>
> No, Sir, that again is what you'd LIKE to see in me. I merely see alot of
> existences whining about dead people unknown to them, and this only if the
> offender is on death row.
>
who would claim that there is some 'whining' about
someone murdered, who at the same moment would
'whine' that we should have 'pity' on the murderer,
is not looking at things rationally, IMHO.
> Tell me.. do dead
> >murder victims have 'rights'? Do ANY dead at all
> >have 'rights.'? This is of course a trick question.
>
> ...for to justify executions.
>
>
> The dead CAN have no secular rights, for the plain reason that they are not
> EXISTENT on our plane of perception. They took their rights with them.
>
But that's absurd. I've just shown in another thread
where society ASSERTS that the dead have rights,
which exist following their death for some length of
time. Seriously, do you think 'rights' are something
passed down from nature, or are they devised and
given BETWEEN men? Do YOU have some 'natural'
right that is different from a starving child in Africa?
If you claim that you both have the SAME rights, then
what ABOUT that starving child in Africa? If you
claim you do have 'different' natural rights. you know
what that makes YOU. So, assuming you do not
believe in 'natural' rights, what gives you the RIGHT
to say that society may not decide to accept the fact
that the rights given FOLLOW into death?
> There's to say alot about this strawman "Rights of the victim", strongly
> reminding on the material presents and even living humans buried
> along with
> the Pharaohs. You substituted this/them by the offender's life. But moot to
> discuss after you do not want to understand me.
Yes, and every argument against is such a 'strawman'
argument. I do not say 'rights of the victim' exist for
eternity... I say they exist as long as society claims that
they exist, or until all issues surrounding the previous
existence regarding rights have been SETTLED.
>
> <flames snipped>
>
> J.
>
> P.s. I owe you nothing and need for my learning of your language
> absolutely
> no excuse from you. You simply can not answer even one deeper
> question about
> the DP and nothing else. You wrote to Jane: "The DP is God", and so is it:
> Your ratio ends where the DP begins.
Ho ho ho. See what I mean? I wrote "The DP is good,'
not God. Good grief, you can't even read a simple
4 word sentence. I guess I'm better in German than
you are in English, because I know the difference
between 'gut,' and 'Gott.' And you've never asked a
'deep' question in English in your life. Lacking language
skills in English you are unable to formulate a 'deep'
question. It's just trite and hysteria from you, all the way
down.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9vspf5$rcb$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9vsr7r$60k$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
What I've said is you are no longer worth wasting my
time deciphering your fractured English. I've put up
with it for 18 months, and I'll no longer do it. Others
may do as they wish, as you may as well. I've never
said you can't post, only that posts which are posted
to me, or that contain thoughts from you I disagree
with, will be remarked by me regarding your lack of
English comprehension when I see such. I've told
you, I don't care if you post in Swahili. BUT... BUT...
BUT... if you post in English, one should at the least
be able to comprehend what you are saying. I would
not attempt to post in Swahili for that exact reason.
You take your lack of English skills too personally,
my friend. Accept it as simply my refusal to deal with
it any further, regardless of what others may do.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c225bf9$0$1398$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
> > > news:RHdU7.129989$oj3.22...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3c213fa7$0$26276$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
<clipped>
> If t makes you feel better, I accept your point about copyright extending
> for a period regardless of the status of the original copyright holder. Will
> you now accept my point that this is meaningless in terms of the original
> holder if they are dead? Dopn't answer that, I know you won't.
>
Of course I won't accept it, and of course I WILL answer it.
The rights of a victim extend as far as society wishes them
to extend, as shown by copyright law, and until all issues
surrounding the previous existence regarding rights have
been SETTLED.
<clipped>
> You still haven't addressed the property or defamation laws.
I don't HAVE to. Having shown that society accepts
the fact that 'rights' exist, that's all that's necessary.
<clipped>
> > Crap... meaningless crap. First you say it has nothing
> > to do with it, and then you say it is a 'form' of it.
> I said it was a symptom. It is also an injustice in and of itself.
> Abolishing any given form of injustice doesn't abolish all
> injustice. No
> contradiction at all, except in your limited thinking.
Argggg!!! When you called it a 'symptom,' and I pointed
out what that meant, you argued VIGOROUSLY that
I was making some kind of connection to 'death' and
'AIDS.' Seriously, Craig... you HAVE tried to have it
both ways, at different times in this dialog.
<clipped>
> > > > > 6. A "civil" society has a responsibility to at least
> > > > > try to transcend the flaws of individuals. This is a
> > > > > basic tenet IMHO.
> > > > I totally disagree with that. We have NO responsibility
> > > > to make APOLOGIES to individuals who have demonstrated
> > > > flaws which cause HARM to others.
> > > Quite right. Go to the top of the class.
> > Let me get this straight. You make a statement. I totally
> > disagree with that statement. You then say 'quite
> > right.' What the HELL are you talking about?
> I have never suggested that we have any responsibility to
> apologise to or for offenders.
When you say society has a responsibility to TRANSCEND
the flaws of individuals, you are of course expecting society to
APOLOGIZE for those flaws.
> You put up a straw man and then destroyed it. I agree with
> your statement on this point. It also had nothing whatsoever
> to do with the
> point as usual. To help you out, I'll reiterate the point;
It was YOU that put up the 'straw man' with your claim
that society has a RESPONSIBILITY to transcend the
FLAWS of individuals. You'll find NO factual evidence
that such a responsibility even exists.
> "6. A "civil" society has a responsibility to at least try to transcend
> the flaws of individuals. This is a basic tenet IMHO".
>
Repeating it, doesn't make it true.
> > > > Never. Too many
> > > > have OVERCOME without demonstrating such flaws, to
> > > > claim we must apologize to those who do not. Were
> > > > we to believe we need to apologize to the dysfunctional,
> > > > we'd do a great disservice to those who have remained
> > > > functional, in spite of social injustice, and disenfranchisement.
> > > > And that has nothing to do with a dystopian or utopian
> > > > viewpoint.
> > > Great. So you believe the fact that some manage to
> > > struggle through despite everything is valid reason
> > > to abandon those whom we (as a society) have
> > > damaged. What a guy.
> > No, I am saying we should not abandon THOSE others,
> > to make apologies, and try to salvage that which is
> > not salvageable.
>
> Nor am I. I have never suggested such a thing. I DO
> suggest that continual evaluation of offenders is an
> essential requirement of any valid system.
In fact, EVERY moment of time and energy devoted
to trying to rehabilitate those we are CERTAIN (as
certain as humans can be) are NOT capable of
being rehabilitated is taking that time and energy
away from those who could more easily BE rehabilitated.
How might we do this? Give them a free pass to wrong
another victim.
> This still fails to address
> my point about the responsibility of society to be
> better behaved than individuals. I'm using simple
> words now PV, please let me know if you don't understand.
But society IS better behaved. That's clearly demonstrated
in the DP itself, since there is no MALICE associated
with it, nor is it unlawful.
> >I believe the responsibility of the State
> > is to insure we are all responsible to each other, and to
> > ourselves.
> This is certainly one role, but it doesn't address the
> responsibility of the State to behave as well as the
> best of us, rather than the worst.
And I believe it does so. I see a large degree of morality
to the DP, in addition to any pragmatic benefits I see.
Clearly, society expresses OUTRAGE, which is a
perfectly natural response which we ALL feel, toward
murder. I see a society that will accept no compromise
in what IT sees as irresponsible behavior of its members,
to be a well behaved society. Society MAKES the
rules, depending on the WILL of its members. When
it does so, it is well-behaved. When it IGNORES the
WILL of its members, it is NOT well-behaved.
<clipped>
> > > The
> > > death penalty
> > > is an expression of fear and loathing
> > Don't be absurd. The DP is about 'public safety.' That's
> > the way this dialog started, and that's the way it ends.
> > ALL penalties are about 'public safety.' Read the damn
> > criminal statutes to understand that, and quit inserting
> > YOUR definitions.
> You make this point for me later in your post.
I'll make it as many times as appropriate if it serves
to counter any argument that you present which
presumes the DP is NOT about 'public safety.'
> > > and as such can be nothing but
> > > negative in its overall effect.
> > What!!! You are supposing that a recidivism rate of
> > 0% is a negative??? What planet are YOU from?
> Refer to my earlier comments about the alternatives.
Regardless, you have totally discounted a 0%
recidivist rate in your analysis. Your argument
is generally 'we should be better than that.' But
you ignore the REALITIES which are beneficial
in the DP.
> > > On top of everything else, there are technologies presently
> > > available which
> > > can confine an individual within a small radius and are
> > > extremely reliable.
> > > These are simple and effective and I'm not sure why they
> > > aren't more widely used.
> > An example which is to me totally immoral, much more so
> > than the DP, and without a doubt less certain to prevent
> > recidivism than the DP. Seriously, if YOU were faced
> > with the choice that you've offered or the DP, which would
> > YOU choose?
>
> What choice do you think I've offered? I'm not referring to
> chains or legirons or any of the implements of torture. If
> the aim is to prevent movement there are devices available
> that would administer any number of temporarily disabling
> treatments in the event of either straying too far from a
> point, or outside a boundary or even on coming too close
> to others. perhaps you could put your EE cap on and tell
> us why these are not workable.
In respect to the DP, they are unworkable for a number of
reasons. Mostly revolving about they are. as you say,
'temporary' and they are a WASTE OF TIME and
ENERGY, when dealing with those who are beyond
rehabilitation.
<clipped>
> > > My view of the current situation is: the US is dystopian >addressing the
> > > dystopia is not seen as a priority> crime is a problem as a
> > > result>regressive sentencing regimes are introduced> the
> > > death penalty is
> > > the ultimate regressive penalty.
> > And of course, even were your entire analysis to be
> > true, which I do not grant you... the key is in the
> > second step. Address the dystopia. We will not kill
> > the weed by cultivating the leaves. The weed only
> > grows stronger.
>
> We most certainly won't kill the weeds by destroying the crop.
>
The 'crop' of MURDERERS? Wherever do you dream
up these comparisons?
<clipped>
Nothing wrong with that principle when discussing
those who are not BEYOND rehabilitation. Obviously
we have the RIGHT to determine who is and who
isn't beyond rehabilitation. I've always been against
an alternate prison sentence that assumes the murderer
CAN NEVER be returned to society, if they are seen
as within rehabilitation.
<clipped>
> > > If it doesn't we
> > > are no better than animals.
> > Hello.. what animal MURDERS its own kind? The
> > extrapolation of the DP into a belief that it makes us
> > no better than animals is absurd, because a Justice
> > System doesn't exist in any of the animal kingdom,
> > except in the human species. You might as well
> > say that monkeys don't have trials, so why should
> > we?
>
> Animals don't have hope. It's one of the things that
> defines humanity. As an aside, have you ever seen
> what a tomcat does to kittens if given the chance?
Do other tomcats hold a trial? My point is that calling
us 'no better than animals' when we execute is absurd.
The trial and due process lasting into the decades shows
us to be more humane than some of 'the animals' that
murder others. It's actually not hard at all for us to be
MORE humane than a murderer. It's actually quite
simple in most examples of murder.
<clipped>
If you notice I didn't say you would. I only said that
the LIMITS you would impose would certain change.
And the effort you make to INSURE those limits are
maintained would suffer a quantum leap.
<clipped>
But of course.... THOSE mistakes cost a bunch of
innocent lives. Who is responsible for that? Certainly
not the retentionist. It's a given... an ABSOLUTE
given, that without the DP there will be SOME increase
(regardless of how slight one might HOPE to portray
that increase) in the recidivist rate. This is hardly
debatable BECAUSE of the 'list.' It needs to be said,
that in one respect I hold your argument in high
regard, if you ONLY wouldn't keeping making it appear
to be 'U.S. Bashing.' And the reason I do, is you have
NEVER tried to make a case of the possible execution
of an innocent. I do believe you've tried to look at the
problem in a social sense rather than a hysterical sense
that 'we are running around killing innocents.' Not that
I agree with you in many points, but I do recognize
what you have avoided in hysterical and emotional
terms (although you still get emotional at times --
brutalization).
<clipped>
> > Generally, I've found your argument simply to an
> > opinionated view, lacking any substance whatsoever
> > in respect to the DP. Further, I found your denial
> > of clear evidence that 'rights' exist past the death
> > of the holder of those 'rights' to be deceitful in
> > intent, unwilling to accept the obvious. And lastly,
> > I've deduced that your entire argument, although
> > you would hope to deny it, is simply you hoping to
> > provide a forum for 'U.S. bashing,' quite independent
> > of any rational examination of the DP itself.
>
> Not true PV.
Hey... allow ME a little hysteria at times. :-)
> My opposition to the death penalty is general, you keep
> bringing it back to the specific US situation. I then
> respond accordingly. I actually think it's inevitable that
> the death penalty will be implemented in
> the US, for cultural rather than logical reasons, but
> inevitable none the
> less. I do feel that the US is diminished by its use
> however.
>
I think you mean 'abolished,' not 'implemented.' But,
you should realize that it would be quite difficult to
abolish it in the Constitution, which is more easily
done in Socialist societies, who rewrite their Constitution
every time their government changes hands :-)
I think it almost impossible that such will ever happen
in the U.S. If the DP IS abolished, it will come about
through a Supreme Court test of the PRESENT
constitutionality of that penalty in terms of the 8th
Amendment to our Constitution concerning Cruel and
Unusual Punishment. I think you don't understand
how DIFFICULT such a ruling would be for the Supreme
Court to make, in view of other parts of the Constitution
which clearly express oblique references to the
constitutionality of the DP. Another path is of course,
a State by State abolishing of the DP... but that will
be very time-consuming to have all States finally
agree to.
PV
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
>
>
Exador
> <clipped>
>
> > If t makes you feel better, I accept your point about copyright
extending
> > for a period regardless of the status of the original copyright holder.
Will
> > you now accept my point that this is meaningless in terms of the
original
> > holder if they are dead? Dopn't answer that, I know you won't.
> >
> Of course I won't accept it, and of course I WILL answer it.
> The rights of a victim extend as far as society wishes them
> to extend, as shown by copyright law, and until all issues
> surrounding the previous existence regarding rights have
> been SETTLED.
I knew you would :-).
OK, you win, copyright is not extinguished by death. The ability to claim
the right certainly is, however. I also agree with you that society has the
ability to act on conferred rights in whatever way it sees fit. I have never
argued otherwise, my argument goes to the desirability of society acting in
certain ways and the consquences for the society of so doing.. The copyright
bit may have been a bit hasty, but it doesn't invalidate the argument.
> <clipped>
>
> > You still haven't addressed the property or defamation laws.
>
> I don't HAVE to. Having shown that society accepts
> the fact that 'rights' exist, that's all that's necessary.
Not true. Society accepts the "right" to kill in self-defence. This right is
not extended to all motives for killing. Society accepts that copyright
extends past death of the holder, this right is not extended to all
conferred rights.
It's not a "factual" statement. If I had said that the law required this of
the State, THAT would have been a statement of fact, and easily disputed on
that basis. This is a statement of social theory. You are welcome to
disagree, but misrepresentation only cheapens your argument.
> > "6. A "civil" society has a responsibility to at least try to transcend
> > the flaws of individuals. This is a basic tenet IMHO".
> >
> Repeating it, doesn't make it true.
You are projecting here PV, I have quite clearly stated what I meant by this
statement in the relevant thread and you persist in misrepresenting.
This is just offensive yet again. Where have I suggested this was an option?
You're obviously simple-minded and plain rude.
> > This still fails to address
> > my point about the responsibility of society to be
> > better behaved than individuals. I'm using simple
> > words now PV, please let me know if you don't understand.
>
> But society IS better behaved. That's clearly demonstrated
> in the DP itself, since there is no MALICE associated
> with it, nor is it unlawful.
No, it is not unlawful. I'm sure that many criminals would argue that their
actions had no malice in them either. Your example of a contract killer for
one, and many sex offenders as well. Because you say it doesn't make it so.
> > >I believe the responsibility of the State
> > > is to insure we are all responsible to each other, and to
> > > ourselves.
>
> > This is certainly one role, but it doesn't address the
> > responsibility of the State to behave as well as the
> > best of us, rather than the worst.
>
> And I believe it does so. I see a large degree of morality
> to the DP, in addition to any pragmatic benefits I see.
> Clearly, society expresses OUTRAGE, which is a
> perfectly natural response which we ALL feel, toward
> murder.
This would mean that you see it as perfectly acceptable for all of us to act
on our "perfectly natural responses". This is the sort of attitude that
leads to 14000 murders a year.
> I see a society that will accept no compromise
> in what IT sees as irresponsible behavior of its members,
> to be a well behaved society. Society MAKES the
> rules, depending on the WILL of its members. When
> it does so, it is well-behaved. When it IGNORES the
> WILL of its members, it is NOT well-behaved.
Even if the WILL of it's members is uninformed, with no unifying principle,
and destructive? That's a mob. A mob is a large number of members of society
that may well be perfectly well behaved individuals. As a collective, the
mob is an irrational, easily-led, destructive force. Any State which allows
itself to act on impulses is under mob rule IMHO. Democracy is not mob rule.
> <clipped>
> In respect to the DP, they are unworkable for a number of
> reasons. Mostly revolving about they are. as you say,
> 'temporary' and they are a WASTE OF TIME and
> ENERGY, when dealing with those who are beyond
> rehabilitation.
Why are they unworkable? If the intent is to incapacitate, in a prison
situation all that is required is temporary incapacitation, as intervention
is close at hand. This is the principle behind the capsicum spray, tazer,
tear gas, etc. Any or all of these methods, which are presently used in the
law enforcement environment, could be easily incorporated into a system that
is attached to the prisoner and triggered by any number of automatic means.
It would be possible to have other prisoners wear transponders that caused
the device to trigger if the one being restrained came too physically close.
Actually this might not be a bad idea for all prisoners anyway, as it would
reduce the incidence of prison rape and the transmission of AIDS. That's a
digression I know, ignore it if you like.
The solution is certainly not "temporary", only the incapacitation, which
then leads to intervention. If anything they reduce the amount of TIME and
ENERGY required to supervise recalcitrant or dangerous prisoners.
If you decide to make such a device and patent it, I claim prior right by
dint of publicaion date :).
> <clipped>
>
> > > > My view of the current situation is: the US is dystopian >addressing
the
> > > > dystopia is not seen as a priority> crime is a problem as a
> > > > result>regressive sentencing regimes are introduced> the
> > > > death penalty is
> > > > the ultimate regressive penalty.
>
> > > And of course, even were your entire analysis to be
> > > true, which I do not grant you... the key is in the
> > > second step. Address the dystopia. We will not kill
> > > the weed by cultivating the leaves. The weed only
> > > grows stronger.
> >
> > We most certainly won't kill the weeds by destroying the crop.
> >
> The 'crop' of MURDERERS? Wherever do you dream
> up these comparisons?
The crop of potentially good citizens, some of whom may be potential
murderers if treated badly enough. The analogy is yours by the way.
Simply behaving better thean the worst member of society is insufficient
IMHO. As you say, this is not hard. My expectation is that society, as
embodied in the State, should behave at least as well as the BEST members of
our society, given the amount of resources at hand compared to any
individual.
Possibly. I suspect that the situation is unlikely to arise, because my
children have been well treated from day 1, and have had clear boundaries
and incentives established along the way. The boundaries and incentives
change as the child grows older of course.
Thanks PV. I still maintain that it was your interpretation of this word,
and not my intent, which was emotional. :-)
> <clipped>
>
> Hey... allow ME a little hysteria at times. :-)
"At times"? :)
I meant "implemented". The US culture makes it a virtual certainty IMHO, and
I agree with you as to the difficulties in recognising the penalty as
unconstitutional. You must remember, I'm not an "abolitionist" in the sense
you mean it. I do believe the death penalty to be an unjustified response to
a situation, but I respect absolutely your right to believe otherwise and
act accordingly. It's your country after all.
> PV
--
Cheers,
Craig
John Rennie
You will NOT keep to this promise.
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:BbFU7.12637$US4.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Jürgen. I simply said I will no longer waste time trying
to decipher his convulted and inconprehensible
English. I will simply call it crap, or question mark the
comment as being incomprehensible. With every comment
that Jürgen presents which contains even a speck of
emotional content, one can literally picture the tears
coming from his eyes for murderers (usually when they
are of the female gender). In those cases he descends
into irrational, and meaningless fractured English. It's
not very difficult to keep a promise such as that.
PV
>
Jürgen
John Rennie schrieb in Nachricht ...
<snip>
>You will NOT keep to this promise.
>
He will act otherwise. He will reply to my posts in a willingly
misinterpreting way and whenever I'll point at any of his multiple
weaknesses he'll hide behind my imperfect English, using it as an excuse to
escape a serious discussion.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
>"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:9vsp92$dq1$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
>>
>> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht
>> <2KbU7.129650$oj3.22...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >Hardly, sport. You've claimed if we talk about them
>> >we are 'whining.' That certainly means that
>> >they do not COUNT to you.
>>
>> No, Sir, that again is what you'd LIKE to see in me. I merely see alot of
>> existences whining about dead people unknown to them, and this only if
the
>> offender is on death row.
>>
>Not what I'd LIKE, my friend. What I SEE.
That's the same.
Anyone
>who would claim that there is some 'whining' about
>someone murdered, who at the same moment would
>'whine' that we should have 'pity' on the murderer,
>is not looking at things rationally, IMHO.
Well, whole the "deserves"-argument *IS* emotional. I repeatedly asked you
to give any understandable, i.e. more than purely emotion-based criteria for
to define the edge 'This guilty deserves to be killed and that guilty
deserves it not'. That BTW were the first deeper question.
>
>> Tell me.. do dead
>> >murder victims have 'rights'? Do ANY dead at all
>> >have 'rights.'? This is of course a trick question.
>>
>> ...for to justify executions.
>>
>>
>> The dead CAN have no secular rights, for the plain reason that they are
not
>> EXISTENT on our plane of perception. They took their rights with them.
>>
>But that's absurd. I've just shown in another thread
>where society ASSERTS that the dead have rights,
>which exist following their death for some length of
>time.
Well, of course society is bound to assign imaginary rights to a murder
victim just at the moment society wants to kill for retribution. The
question is whether the victim were *INTERESTED* in this rights at all after
the victim has no option to stand for his/her causes. It therefore makes no
*SENSE* to "grant" "Rights" to anyone unable to either affirm: "Yes, this is
my right and I want it" or to reject: "I don't *want* you to represent me in
this case the way you are doing". Thus, after there is no option for us to
find out whether any dead human *WANTS* a posthumous right at all it is
plain *IMPOSSIBLE* to advocate for him/her *DIRECTLY*.
Seriously, do you think 'rights' are something
>passed down from nature, or are they devised and
>given BETWEEN men?
Rights are of course defined and made by men. The question rather is whether
all ideas and forms of rights are good and moral only because they had been
defined.
Do YOU have some 'natural'
>right that is different from a starving child in Africa?
There is nothing as natural rights. That however does not mean that mankind
should not *define* basic rights for any human being.
>If you claim that you both have the SAME rights, then
>what ABOUT that starving child in Africa? If you
>claim you do have 'different' natural rights. you know
>what that makes YOU. So, assuming you do not
>believe in 'natural' rights, what gives you the RIGHT
>to say that society may not decide to accept the fact
>that the rights given FOLLOW into death?
See above. The most fundamental right is to either demand for or to waiver a
right. What tells you *that* a dead human *wants* retribution at all? The
problem is not that I would not *want* to advocate for the victim but rather
that I *CAN'T*. Neither I or you nor society has a MANDATE for to represent
the victim as his advocates, simply because we have no clue whether on any
possible plane of the victim's consciousness in any possible afterworld
revengal thoughts do *exist* at all.
>
>> There's to say alot about this strawman "Rights of the victim", strongly
>> reminding on the material presents and even living humans buried
>> along with
>> the Pharaohs. You substituted this/them by the offender's life. But moot
to
>> discuss after you do not want to understand me.
>
>Yes, and every argument against is such a 'strawman'
>argument. I do not say 'rights of the victim' exist for
>eternity... I say they exist as long as society claims that
>they exist, or until all issues surrounding the previous
>existence regarding rights have been SETTLED.
In other words, there is no definable timeframe in sight how long the dead's
rights would last. One murderer is released after 15 years, means the
alleged "victim's rights" obviously ended after this time, in the other case
after 20 years "victim's rights" still justify to kill the offender.
However, the second half-sentence is entirely puzzling. Would you want to
set posthumously EVERYTHING straight what ever has been done wrong to any
human?
>Ho ho ho. See what I mean? I wrote "The DP is good,'
>not God. .....
Right. I had only been flying over this post and misread. For that my
apologies.
Jürgen
Jürgen
Richard Jackson schrieb in Nachricht
>"J?gen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:<9vsr7r$60k$02$1...@news.t-online.com>...
>> Richard Jackson schrieb in Nachricht
>> <8cb86b49.01121...@posting.google.com>...
>> Richard, single cases point out that without a skilly and insisting
defense,
>> to hire and pay by private persons, the appeals system - i.e. the STATE -
>> does plain nothing for to get anything straight.
>
>That is assuming there has not been a comprehensive investigation
>PRIOR to the charges being made.
Well, to be honest, my trust in the DP-trials is fundamentally damaged. For
well-known reasons.
<snip>
>> That addresses in no way my perception. The statement stands: The appeals
as
>> a stand-alone without a skilly and private-paid defense neither are
>> interested in exonerating innocents on DR nor are they eager to
reconsider
>> any way too harsh sentences.
>
>The first statement is not exactly correct. No reasonable person
>either in defense or prosecution wishes to see an innocent charged
>with any crime, much less capital murder.
That is interpreted too easily, Richard. That not one - except Gilchrist,
perhaps - wants to see punished the innocent should go unchallenged at
least. But it is another coup of tea if any official is on the edge to
BELIEVE in the defendant's guilt or innocence and decides to reject the
appeal for that there are some else left. Just now you can perceive the
reactions to Abu Jamal's reprieve, what accusations against Judge William
Yohn are spouted right here. A very good example how unpopular it is to even
touch a death sentence. I dunno how many officials would take this burden,
and for any eligible judge this were the political Death Sentence.
I guess there are people
>who would put any bad actor in prison just to "solve" a murder, but
>I've seldom met such. I have met over zealous investigators, but they
>are usually tempered by being paired with older, more experienced
>people.
>
>The second happens all the time. It is a major reason so many people
>have their sentences changed in appeal while on death row. That, in
>and of itself, speaks.
Richard, I disagree. A too harsh sentence is not a reason for a commutation.
For that you have to come up with biased jurors, insufficient defense or any
legal flaw else, and then to win the appeal. Has nothing to do with the
sentence's severity.
>>
>> <snip>
>> >
>> >Mike isn't playing with a full deck, perhaps, Jürgen. His reasoning
>> >IS one of the reasons we DO have courts, and an extensive review of
>> >all capital murder trials. I make no apologies for him, but then some
>> >of your response isn't up to your best either.
>> >
>> Richard, I pondered quite a while how to reply here and found no other
path
>> for viable. Mike is seriously concerned with the topic and wrote formerly
>> also posts pointing out that he does explicitely not cling to 'Kill'em
all
>> and let HIm sort them out', and this already makes it worth to discuss.
>>
>> The idea however to make the related of any death-sentenced pay the
STATE'S
>> legal costs for to kill their guilty related additionally to the
>> defense-costs that they have to afford anyway I found for extremely
>> gruesome, and exactly this I tried to express as moderately as it ever is
>> possible to express an emotion.
>
>Fair enough.
>
Thanks.
>
>>
>> Jürgen
>>
>> P.s. --A short warning: You should know, The Very Master of AAD-P
declared
>> me for the pariah around here. While it plays no part for me for that I
>> already *am* in disgrace this could happen to you, too, by paying too
much
>> attention to my posts. So be careful! ;-)
>
>
>You must think I really care if he likes me or not. ;-O
>
)-: Tsk, tsk. Should that mean you do not bow you head before the Master??
;-)))
A Planet Visitor
"Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c230396$4$1398$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
<clipped>
> > > If t makes you feel better, I accept your point about
> > > copyright extending
> > > for a period regardless of the status of the original
> > > copyright holder. Will
> > > you now accept my point that this is meaningless in
> > > terms of the original
> > > holder if they are dead? Dopn't answer that, I know
> > > you won't.
> > Of course I won't accept it, and of course I WILL answer it.
> > The rights of a victim extend as far as society wishes them
> > to extend, as shown by copyright law, and until all issues
> > surrounding the previous existence regarding rights have
> > been SETTLED.
> I knew you would :-).
> OK, you win, copyright is not extinguished by death. The ability to claim
> the right certainly is, however. I also agree with you that society has the
> ability to act on conferred rights in whatever way it sees fit. I have never
> argued otherwise,
But of course, you HAVE argued otherwise.
<clipped>
> > > You still haven't addressed the property or defamation laws.
> > I don't HAVE to. Having shown that society accepts
> > the fact that 'rights' exist, that's all that's necessary.
> Not true. Society accepts the "right" to kill in self-defence. This right is
> not extended to all motives for killing. Society accepts that copyright
> extends past death of the holder, this right is not extended to all
> conferred rights.
Craig..Craig... Craig. Every argument you've presented
which presumes that certain 'rights' are lost at death,
are based SOLELY on your opinion, and have no factual
validity. I have SHOWN factual validity. If you would do
likewise, you need to present such FACT. I am quite
certain you will find NO legal finding that asserts or even
implies 'the rights of a murder victim cease at death.' Now,
to further demonstrate what I mean, the first eleven
words to the 4th Amendment to our Constitution state
"The right of the people to be secure in their person...'
This PRESUMES such a right exists. Nowhere will
you find that our Constitution, or any other legal
instrument of the Criminal Justice System presumes
that 'right to be secure' ends at death. It ends when
society SAYS it ends, and no sooner. The murderer
cannot end those rights, by simply IGNORING them
in the act of murder.
<clipped>
> > > You put up a straw man and then destroyed it. I agree with
> > > your statement on this point. It also had nothing whatsoever
> > > to do with the
> > > point as usual. To help you out, I'll reiterate the point;
> > It was YOU that put up the 'straw man' with your claim
> > that society has a RESPONSIBILITY to transcend the
> > FLAWS of individuals. You'll find NO factual evidence
> > that such a responsibility even exists.
> It's not a "factual" statement. If I had said that the law
> required this of the State, THAT would have been a
> statement of fact, and easily disputed on
> that basis. This is a statement of social theory. You are
> welcome to disagree, but misrepresentation only
> cheapens your argument.
This is, of course, one of the flaws I see in your
presentation. You hold strong opinions, as I do.
But you try to force feed those opinions as perhaps
being based on some fact... fact which you NEVER
offer. You did say IMHO, so I accept you meant
it as an opinion. But I heartily disagree that any
such 'responsibility' to FORGIVE the flaws of
individuals who have harmed others might exist.
I don't think you can provide any FACTUAL evidence
of that, and as FACT toward my opinion, you will
find that the Criminal Justice System Code and
Statutues in ANY 'civil' society do not agree with your
idea, in any way. They are ALL based on hoping
to have the individual transcend HIS flaws, not
the presumption that society must transcend those
individual flaws FOR HIM.
> > > "6. A "civil" society has a responsibility to at least try to transcend
> > > the flaws of individuals. This is a basic tenet IMHO".
<clipped>
> > > How? Justice is justice. We can perfectly well accept that
> > > the victim was wronged, without in any way seeking
> > > retribution from the offender.
> > How might we do this? Give them a free pass to wrong
> > another victim.
> This is just offensive yet again. Where have I suggested this was
> an option?
> You're obviously simple-minded and plain rude.
It was as reasonable a response as your argument was.
I specifically gauged it to be so. If a victim is wronged,
the ONLY response we have is to seek retribution from
the offender, because we cannot undo the wrong. Yet
we most certainly cannot IGNORE it either.
> > > This still fails to address
> > > my point about the responsibility of society to be
> > > better behaved than individuals. I'm using simple
> > > words now PV, please let me know if you don't understand.
> > But society IS better behaved. That's clearly demonstrated
> > in the DP itself, since there is no MALICE associated
> > with it, nor is it unlawful.
> No, it is not unlawful. I'm sure that many criminals would
> argue that their actions had no malice in them either.
It is not theirs to argue. Society determines if an individual
demonstrates malice. Obviously, if one asks the perpetrator
if they demonstrated malice, I doubt if one in a million would
agree with that. Thus it takes an UNBIASED observer to
determine it, and the body of the members of society
form groups with the intention of providing such an unbiased
view. If you would argue that the DP demonstrates malice,
then your argument consists of believing the Criminal
Justice System itself demonstrates malice, and that's
absurd, since it denies the fact that such a system is
established by the larger body of society to DEAL with
violent acts of malice, rather than demonstrate malice
as a part of this process. Clearly a trial, requiring a
unanimous verdict, and a lengthy due process would
seem to put to bed, any idea that society demonstrates
malice in ANY penalty for a crime. A murderer is not
so inclined.
> Your example of a contract killer for
> one, and many sex offenders as well. Because you say it
> doesn't make it so.
You misunderstand 'malice' and 'motive.' Because a
person murders for money or sexual gratification does
not mitigate the malice in the act.
> > > >I believe the responsibility of the State
> > > > is to insure we are all responsible to each other, and to
> > > > ourselves.
> > > This is certainly one role, but it doesn't address the
> > > responsibility of the State to behave as well as the
> > > best of us, rather than the worst.
> > And I believe it does so. I see a large degree of morality
> > to the DP, in addition to any pragmatic benefits I see.
> > Clearly, society expresses OUTRAGE, which is a
> > perfectly natural response which we ALL feel, toward
> > murder.
> This would mean that you see it as perfectly acceptable
> for all of us to act on our "perfectly natural responses"
> This is the sort of attitude that
> leads to 14000 murders a year.
The 'perfectly natural response' to murder is 'an eye for
an eye,' and a sense of outrage. We reject such a
concept as both immoral and impractical. That does
not mean we should HIDE the outrage we feel toward
murder, and murderers. Simply that it must be
MEASURED and appopriate when it reaches a certain
level of outrage. To deny that, is to accept that NO
murder reaches a sufficient level of outrage requiring
us to accept the DP as a measured response. I
believe MANY murders reach that sufficient level,
and DEMAND that society express outrage about
those SPECIFIC murders. I defy you to read of the
murders committed by Theodore Frank (you'll find it
in my past posts if you search in google), and not
find sufficient outrage to believe that this 'animal'
should not be entitled to one more atom of our oxygen,
EVER. His continued existence should cause us
SHAME, rather than any sense of morality that
he still walks this planet.
> > I see a society that will accept no compromise
> > in what IT sees as irresponsible behavior of its members,
> > to be a well behaved society. Society MAKES the
> > rules, depending on the WILL of its members. When
> > it does so, it is well-behaved. When it IGNORES the
> > WILL of its members, it is NOT well-behaved.
> Even if the WILL of it's members is uninformed, with no unifying principle,
> and destructive? That's a mob. A mob is a large number of members
> of society
> that may well be perfectly well behaved individuals.
> As a collective, the
> mob is an irrational, easily-led, destructive force. Any State which allows
> itself to act on impulses is under mob rule IMHO. Democracy is not mob
> rule.
Again, not relevant. You are perhaps following Earl's
lead in presuming that an 'elitist' group of individuals
should determine WHAT we should and shouldn't accept.
Seriously, that's a symptom of Socialism that thoroughly
disgusts me. It also presumes that you are speaking of
a SPECIFIC example rather than a hypothetical situation.
Natural, a mob is destructive. A mob that is uninformed,
with even a unifying principle, if that principle is
destructive in nature, is an abomination. It can be
seen as vigilante in purpose. But that is NOT the real-life
situation in ANY developed country. Nor does it
have any REAL existence in an argument as to the use
of the DP in the U.S.
<clipped>
> > In respect to the DP, they are unworkable for a number of
> > reasons. Mostly revolving about they are. as you say,
> > 'temporary' and they are a WASTE OF TIME and
> > ENERGY, when dealing with those who are beyond
> > rehabilitation.
> Why are they unworkable? If the intent is to incapacitate, in a prison
> situation all that is required is temporary incapacitation, as intervention
> is close at hand. This is the principle behind the capsicum spray, tazer,
> tear gas, etc. Any or all of these methods, which are presently used in the
> law enforcement environment, could be easily incorporated into a
> system that is attached to the prisoner and triggered by any number
> of automatic means.
> It would be possible to have other prisoners wear transponders that caused
> the device to trigger if the one being restrained came too physically close.
> Actually this might not be a bad idea for all prisoners anyway, as it would
> reduce the incidence of prison rape and the transmission of AIDS. That's a
> digression I know, ignore it if you like.
> The solution is certainly not "temporary", only the incapacitation, which
> then leads to intervention. If anything they reduce the amount of TIME and
> ENERGY required to supervise recalcitrant or dangerous prisoners.
> If you decide to make such a device and patent it, I claim prior right by
> dint of publicaion date :).
Perhaps we might also implant tracking devices in every
newborn, and track their physical movement throughout
their life. Knowing that their acts would be detected and
their movement followed after the act, I see all crime
being eliminated. :-) Your argument and mine would be
totally demolished by civil libertarians who are also against
the DP, and sometimes I believe ALL penalties. The
point is, to cut through all of this: We do not wish
TEMPORARY incapacitation in some cases. We
DEMAND TOTAL and PERMANENT incapacitation.
Nothing meets that demand fully except the DP.
<clipped>
> > > > > My view of the current situation is: the US is dystopian
> > > > > addressing the
> > > > > dystopia is not seen as a priority> crime is a problem as a
> > > > > result>regressive sentencing regimes are introduced> the
> > > > > death penalty is
> > > > > the ultimate regressive penalty.
> > > > And of course, even were your entire analysis to be
> > > > true, which I do not grant you... the key is in the
> > > > second step. Address the dystopia. We will not kill
> > > > the weed by cultivating the leaves. The weed only
> > > > grows stronger.
> > > We most certainly won't kill the weeds by destroying the crop.
> > The 'crop' of MURDERERS? Wherever do you dream
> > up these comparisons?
> The crop of potentially good citizens, some of whom may be potential
> murderers if treated badly enough. The analogy is yours by the way.
No... I am speaking ONLY of the plant which is the
MURDERER. If we expect to totally incapacitate
that murderer, clipping his weeds, with some form
of temporary measure, will only allow him to perhaps
even grow stronger in his intention to murder again.
Let me say, however; that it is YOUR analogy which
would ignore the potential murderer, while suggesting
we focus more of our time and energy on the ACTUAL
murderer, who we have determined should probably
be written off.
<clipped>
> > > > > If it doesn't we
> > > > > are no better than animals.
> > > > Hello.. what animal MURDERS its own kind? The
> > > > extrapolation of the DP into a belief that it makes us
> > > > no better than animals is absurd, because a Justice
> > > > System doesn't exist in any of the animal kingdom,
> > > > except in the human species. You might as well
> > > > say that monkeys don't have trials, so why should
> > > > we?
> > > Animals don't have hope. It's one of the things that
> > > defines humanity. As an aside, have you ever seen
> > > what a tomcat does to kittens if given the chance?
> > Do other tomcats hold a trial? My point is that calling
> > us 'no better than animals' when we execute is absurd.
> > The trial and due process lasting into the decades shows
> > us to be more humane than some of 'the animals' that
> > murder others. It's actually not hard at all for us to be
> > MORE humane than a murderer. It's actually quite
> > simple in most examples of murder.
> Simply behaving better thean the worst member of society
> is insufficient IMHO.
In respect to those worst members of society, it's
enough for me.
> As you say, this is not hard. My expectation is that society, as
> embodied in the State, should behave at least as well as the
> BEST members of
> our society, given the amount of resources at hand compared to any
> individual.
Even the BEST members of our society will kill in
self-defense. That is the overriding principle of
today's Justice System. The hope for 'public
safety,' compared to an individual's demand for
'individual safety.'
<clipped>
> > If you notice I didn't say you would. I only said that
> > the LIMITS you would impose would certain change.
> > And the effort you make to INSURE those limits are
> > maintained would suffer a quantum leap.
> Possibly. I suspect that the situation is unlikely to arise, because my
> children have been well treated from day 1, and have had clear boundaries
> and incentives established along the way. The boundaries and incentives
> change as the child grows older of course.
Yes, but we are speaking of 'hypothetical.' It's
hardly relevant to place your ACTUAL situation
into a discussion of POSSIBLE scenarios. It
was certainly not my intention to do so.
<clipped>
> I meant "implemented".
But the DP has ALREADY been 'implemented in the U.S.!
You seem to be speaking in the 'future' tense in your
statement. So I'm not sure what you mean.
> The US culture makes it a virtual certainty
> IMHO, and
> I agree with you as to the difficulties in recognising the penalty as
> unconstitutional. You must remember, I'm not an "abolitionist" in the sense
> you mean it. I do believe the death penalty to be an unjustified response to
> a situation, but I respect absolutely your right to believe otherwise and
> act accordingly. It's your country after all.
>
PV
> Cheers,
> Craig
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:9vvr89$ofs$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
> >
> >"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:9vsp92$dq1$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
> >>
> >> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht
> >> <2KbU7.129650$oj3.22...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>...
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >Hardly, sport. You've claimed if we talk about them
> >> >we are 'whining.' That certainly means that
> >> >they do not COUNT to you.
> >>
> >> No, Sir, that again is what you'd LIKE to see in me. I merely see alot of
> >> existences whining about dead people unknown to them, and this only if
> the
> >> offender is on death row.
> >>
> >Not what I'd LIKE, my friend. What I SEE.
>
> That's the same.
>
difference between what we 'like' and what we 'see'?
Must we 'like' EVERYTHING we 'see'? You see how
your English fails you?
> >Anyone
> >who would claim that there is some 'whining' about
> >someone murdered, who at the same moment would
> >'whine' that we should have 'pity' on the murderer,
> >is not looking at things rationally, IMHO.
>
> Well, whole the "deserves"-argument *IS* emotional. I repeatedly asked you
> to give any understandable, i.e. more than purely emotion-based criteria for
> to define the edge 'This guilty deserves to be killed and that guilty
> deserves it not'. That BTW were the first deeper question.
??????????????
>
> >
> >> Tell me.. do dead
> >> >murder victims have 'rights'? Do ANY dead at all
> >> >have 'rights.'? This is of course a trick question.
> >>
> >> ...for to justify executions.
> >>
> >>
> >> The dead CAN have no secular rights, for the plain reason that they are
> not
> >> EXISTENT on our plane of perception. They took their rights with them.
> >>
> >But that's absurd. I've just shown in another thread
> >where society ASSERTS that the dead have rights,
> >which exist following their death for some length of
> >time.
>
> Well, of course society is bound to assign imaginary rights to a murder
> victim just at the moment society wants to kill for retribution.
Oh, now those rights are 'imaginary.' As opposed to when
they were a concrete object when alive, perhaps? Can you
grow up? 'Rights' ARE rights. They're ALL 'imaginary,' having
been created from man's own imagination. There's no sign in
the stars that write out what our 'rights' are.
> The
> question is whether the victim were *INTERESTED* in this rights at all after
> the victim has no option to stand for his/her causes. It therefore makes no
> *SENSE* to "grant" "Rights" to anyone unable to either affirm: "Yes, this is
> my right and I want it" or to reject: "I don't *want* you to represent me in
> this case the way you are doing". Thus, after there is no option for us to
> find out whether any dead human *WANTS* a posthumous right at all it is
> plain *IMPOSSIBLE* to advocate for him/her *DIRECTLY*.
>
???????????? Society provides 'rights.' Murderers
cannot take away those rights. Can you provide even
ONE legal cite in ANY criminal justice system that would
say -- 'when a person is murdered they lose their rights'?
> Seriously, do you think 'rights' are something
> >passed down from nature, or are they devised and
> >given BETWEEN men?
>
> Rights are of course defined and made by men.
Ahhh... they're 'imaginary.' They are defined from
man's imagination. Thus they are the SAME..
dead or alive.
> The question rather is whether
> all ideas and forms of rights are good and moral only
> because they had been
> defined.
>
???????????
> Do YOU have some 'natural'
> >right that is different from a starving child in Africa?
>
> There is nothing as natural rights. That however does not
> mean that mankind
> should not *define* basic rights for any human being.
>
Of course... those 'imaginary' rights. I've never said
they did not exist. Nor did I say they ended in the
death of the person. They end when society decides
to end them, no sooner and no later, since society
CREATED and gave them. A murderer cannot take
away what Society has given. I really don't know how
you expect to differentiate between 'living' rights and
'dead' rights, since you agree they are 'imaginary.'
> >If you claim that you both have the SAME rights, then
> >what ABOUT that starving child in Africa? If you
> >claim you do have 'different' natural rights. you know
> >what that makes YOU. So, assuming you do not
> >believe in 'natural' rights, what gives you the RIGHT
> >to say that society may not decide to accept the fact
> >that the rights given FOLLOW into death?
>
> See above. The most fundamental right is to either demand for
> or to waiver a
> right.
Who says?? Who are YOU to try and define the 'most
fundamental' right?
> What tells you *that* a dead human *wants* retribution at all?
Society does, since it gave those 'imaginary' rights to
the victim. Not being able to enunciate those rights
doesn't mean they've been abrogated.
> The
> problem is not that I would not *want* to advocate for the victim but rather
> that I *CAN'T*. Neither I or you nor society has a MANDATE for
> to represent
> the victim as his advocates, simply because we have no clue whether on any
> possible plane of the victim's consciousness in any possible afterworld
> revengal thoughts do *exist* at all.
Of course Society has that mandate. Having GIVEN those
rights, it forms the protective barrier that MAINTAINS
those rights. Clearly our Constitution outlines certain
rights we have, and there is NOTHING within that
Constitution that says we LOSE those rights when we
expire. Society DETERMINES when those rights
'expire.'
> >
> >> There's to say alot about this strawman "Rights of the victim", strongly
> >> reminding on the material presents and even living humans buried
> >> along with
> >> the Pharaohs. You substituted this/them by the offender's life. But moot
> to
> >> discuss after you do not want to understand me.
> >
> >Yes, and every argument against is such a 'strawman'
> >argument. I do not say 'rights of the victim' exist for
> >eternity... I say they exist as long as society claims that
> >they exist, or until all issues surrounding the previous
> >existence regarding rights have been SETTLED.
>
> In other words, there is no definable timeframe in sight how long the dead's
> rights would last.
Of course there is. The timeframe is DEFINED by society.
Not necessarily for 1 year, 2 years or whatever. They
end when society has determined that all CLAIMS concerning
those rights have been settled. Society may well terminate
those same 'rights' even BEFORE a person dies. That's
rather obvious, with the existence of the Justice System.
> One murderer is released after 15 years, means the
> alleged "victim's rights" obviously ended after this time, in the other case
> after 20 years "victim's rights" still justify to kill the offender.
> However, the second half-sentence is entirely puzzling. Would you want to
> set posthumously EVERYTHING straight what ever has been done wrong to any
> human?
??????????????????
Exador
> > I knew you would :-).
> > OK, you win, copyright is not extinguished by death. The ability to
claim
> > the right certainly is, however. I also agree with you that society has
the
> > ability to act on conferred rights in whatever way it sees fit. I have
never
> > argued otherwise,
>
> But of course, you HAVE argued otherwise.
But od course I haven't. I have always upheld the ability of the State to
act. I have also argued against the desirability of some State action. There
is no conflict in these two arguments.
> <clipped>
>
> > > > You still haven't addressed the property or defamation laws.
>
> > > I don't HAVE to. Having shown that society accepts
> > > the fact that 'rights' exist, that's all that's necessary.
>
> > Not true. Society accepts the "right" to kill in self-defence. This
right is
> > not extended to all motives for killing. Society accepts that copyright
> > extends past death of the holder, this right is not extended to all
> > conferred rights.
>
> Craig..Craig... Craig. Every argument you've presented
> which presumes that certain 'rights' are lost at death,
> are based SOLELY on your opinion, and have no factual
> validity. I have SHOWN factual validity. If you would do
> likewise, you need to present such FACT. I am quite
> certain you will find NO legal finding that asserts or even
> implies 'the rights of a murder victim cease at death.' Now,
> to further demonstrate what I mean, the first eleven
> words to the 4th Amendment to our Constitution state
> "The right of the people to be secure in their person...'
> This PRESUMES such a right exists. Nowhere will
> you find that our Constitution, or any other legal
> instrument of the Criminal Justice System presumes
> that 'right to be secure' ends at death.
You are making the presumption that because no specific statement in the
constitution limits rights to those alive, that the rights continue after
death. This is a logical fallacy. I'm searching at the moment to find a
citation. I WILL get back to you.
> It ends when
> society SAYS it ends, and no sooner. The murderer
> cannot end those rights, by simply IGNORING them
> in the act of murder.
I disagree. You're confusing the rights of a victim with the
(understandable) desire of those close to the victim to seek retribution.
It's a moot point anyway, because no remedy is available to the victim for
the breaching of his rights.
> <clipped>
> This is, of course, one of the flaws I see in your
> presentation. You hold strong opinions, as I do.
> But you try to force feed those opinions as perhaps
> being based on some fact... fact which you NEVER
> offer. You did say IMHO, so I accept you meant
> it as an opinion. But I heartily disagree that any
> such 'responsibility' to FORGIVE the flaws of
> individuals who have harmed others might exist.
> I don't think you can provide any FACTUAL evidence
> of that, and as FACT toward my opinion, you will
> find that the Criminal Justice System Code and
> Statutues in ANY 'civil' society do not agree with your
> idea, in any way. They are ALL based on hoping
> to have the individual transcend HIS flaws, not
> the presumption that society must transcend those
> individual flaws FOR HIM.
Never suggested it did. You're projecting again. I'll keep repeating this as
long as you keep repeating your misrepresentation.
> <clipped>
> It was as reasonable a response as your argument was.
> I specifically gauged it to be so. If a victim is wronged,
> the ONLY response we have is to seek retribution from
> the offender, because we cannot undo the wrong. Yet
> we most certainly cannot IGNORE it either.
The only response you are willing to accept is retribution. It is not the
only response available.
I suspect that many murderers bear their victims little thought, malicious
or otherwise. This is not a justification BTW, simply an observation.
Society, OTOH...
from Websters 3rd New International Dictionary
malice
(3) revengefiul or unfriendly feelings
I suggest that all cases of the death penalty being implemented are deeply
based in malice.
> > Your example of a contract killer for
> > one, and many sex offenders as well. Because you say it
> > doesn't make it so.
>
> You misunderstand 'malice' and 'motive.' Because a
> person murders for money or sexual gratification does
> not mitigate the malice in the act.
One might as well say that a butcher is malicious toward the beast he kills,
which is ridiculous. If someone tortures animals for example, this would
most certainly be malicious. I didn't mention MURDER for sexual
gratification BTW, I would regard this as most certainly malicious. I said
"some sex offenders".
Once again PV, please spare me the rant on the inappropriateness of the
analogy, it's only an analogy, I don't regard victims as animals, nor do I
wish to degrade them.
> > > > >I believe the responsibility of the State
> > > > > is to insure we are all responsible to each other, and to
> > > > > ourselves.
>
> > > > This is certainly one role, but it doesn't address the
> > > > responsibility of the State to behave as well as the
> > > > best of us, rather than the worst.
>
> > > And I believe it does so. I see a large degree of morality
> > > to the DP, in addition to any pragmatic benefits I see.
> > > Clearly, society expresses OUTRAGE, which is a
> > > perfectly natural response which we ALL feel, toward
> > > murder.
>
> > This would mean that you see it as perfectly acceptable
> > for all of us to act on our "perfectly natural responses"
> > This is the sort of attitude that
> > leads to 14000 murders a year.
>
> The 'perfectly natural response' to murder is 'an eye for
> an eye,' and a sense of outrage. We reject such a
> concept as both immoral and impractical. That does
> not mean we should HIDE the outrage we feel toward
> murder, and murderers. Simply that it must be
> MEASURED and appopriate when it reaches a certain
> level of outrage. To deny that, is to accept that NO
> murder reaches a sufficient level of outrage requiring
> us to accept the DP as a measured response.
I concur.
>I
> believe MANY murders reach that sufficient level,
> and DEMAND that society express outrage about
> those SPECIFIC murders. I defy you to read of the
> murders committed by Theodore Frank (you'll find it
> in my past posts if you search in google), and not
> find sufficient outrage to believe that this 'animal'
> should not be entitled to one more atom of our oxygen,
> EVER. His continued existence should cause us
> SHAME, rather than any sense of morality that
> he still walks this planet.
Yes, I read your description in the deterrence thread a couple of weeks ago.
The guy is obviously insane. Killing him is not necessary. Treating him may
well be impossible; as a civil society I believe we have a responsibility to
try anyway. I agree that a case like this makes it difficult to argue for
his continued existence, any reasonable person is outraged. That's the point
of my argument that our society has the responsibility to transcend the
individual.
> > > I see a society that will accept no compromise
> > > in what IT sees as irresponsible behavior of its members,
> > > to be a well behaved society. Society MAKES the
> > > rules, depending on the WILL of its members. When
> > > it does so, it is well-behaved. When it IGNORES the
> > > WILL of its members, it is NOT well-behaved.
>
> > Even if the WILL of it's members is uninformed, with no unifying
principle,
> > and destructive? That's a mob. A mob is a large number of members
> > of society
> > that may well be perfectly well behaved individuals.
> > As a collective, the
> > mob is an irrational, easily-led, destructive force. Any State which
allows
> > itself to act on impulses is under mob rule IMHO. Democracy is not mob
> > rule.
>
> Again, not relevant. You are perhaps following Earl's
> lead in presuming that an 'elitist' group of individuals
> should determine WHAT we should and shouldn't accept.
> Seriously, that's a symptom of Socialism that thoroughly
> disgusts me.
Not necessarily. ANY form of social organisation except anarchy presumes the
right of leaders to determine the laws of that society. In a democratic
society we elect such leaders and in so doing give them as a group the right
to pass laws for the rest of us. Socialism is not incompatible with this, in
fact IMHO it is strengthened by this. I have no argument with democracy at
all. I see it as essential to a civil society. OTOH, I would rather live in
a society that DOESN'T have a democratic structure if such a structure is
based on a "race to the bottom", which IMHO, is what is happening to a large
extent in the US and in Australia. Populism per se is no basis for good
government.
> It also presumes that you are speaking of
> a SPECIFIC example rather than a hypothetical situation.
> Natural, a mob is destructive. A mob that is uninformed,
> with even a unifying principle, if that principle is
> destructive in nature, is an abomination. It can be
> seen as vigilante in purpose. But that is NOT the real-life
> situation in ANY developed country. Nor does it
> have any REAL existence in an argument as to the use
> of the DP in the U.S.
Mob rule is an extreme example of populism. I used it to make a point, which
I believe you have taken.
The disablement in any one instance is temporary, the incapacitation is
permanent for as long as such a device is in use. I also clearly stated that
I support the use of such devices in a prison context, so your hysterical
argument about implantation at birth is irrelevant.
> <clipped>
>
> > > If you notice I didn't say you would. I only said that
> > > the LIMITS you would impose would certain change.
> > > And the effort you make to INSURE those limits are
> > > maintained would suffer a quantum leap.
>
> > Possibly. I suspect that the situation is unlikely to arise, because my
> > children have been well treated from day 1, and have had clear
boundaries
> > and incentives established along the way. The boundaries and incentives
> > change as the child grows older of course.
>
> Yes, but we are speaking of 'hypothetical.' It's
> hardly relevant to place your ACTUAL situation
> into a discussion of POSSIBLE scenarios. It
> was certainly not my intention to do so.
I place it there because it is a FACTUAL example of the effect of good
treatment leading to positive outcomes. I know you agree with this point.
Sorry, the grammar was a bit tangled. I rewrote the sentence and didn't edit
properly. I meant that the US is culturally predisposed to the
implementation of the death penalty and hence it was inevitable that it
would be introduced, at least in some States.
A Planet Visitor
"Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c23dc3d$0$4665$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> > > I knew you would :-).
> > > OK, you win, copyright is not extinguished by death. The ability to
> claim
> > > the right certainly is, however. I also agree with you that society has
> the
> > > ability to act on conferred rights in whatever way it sees fit. I have
> never
> > > argued otherwise,
> >
> > But of course, you HAVE argued otherwise.
>
> But od course I haven't. I have always upheld the ability of the State to
> act. I have also argued against the desirability of some State action. There
> is no conflict in these two arguments.
>
'rights' -- "Identify any sentence that resurrects a murder
victim and hence restores "victims' rights" Now I do
not need to show they a victim needs to be resurrected
to have his rights RESTORED. His 'rights' as a victim,
never LEFT him. They are the same rights he had
before, except that he is now a victim. They are not
any special kind of right that ONLY victims have. They
are the same rights that society gives to EVERYONE,
and only society can abrogate those rights.
And you clearly said -- "No such rights exist, as the
dead have no rights;ask any music or book publisher."
Now, look at that -- you have said 'no such rights
exist....' which is NOT the same as what you now
claim. Now you say 'I also agree with you that society
has the ability to act on conferred rights in whatever
way it sees fit. I have never argued otherwise." But you
HAVE argued otherwise. Your original argument
was 'no such rights exist.' This of course, presupposes
society MAY NOT confer rights however it wishes. Now
you say it MAY.
Why is that a logical fallacy? Because you SAY it is??
Actually, a statement from society remains in force
until society says it no longer applies.
> > It ends when
> > society SAYS it ends, and no sooner. The murderer
> > cannot end those rights, by simply IGNORING them
> > in the act of murder.
>
> I disagree. You're confusing the rights of a victim with the
> (understandable) desire of those close to the victim to seek
> retribution.
> It's a moot point anyway, because no remedy is available to
> the victim for the breaching of his rights.
>
Let me be as brutally blunt as I can. I do not give a shit
about the desires of those close to the victim. I feel
for them, but they have no VOICE in respect to the
victim. NO ONE DOES. Only the victim, and the
body of society can SPEAK for the victim. What
kind of a justice system would we have if we left the
desires of those close to the victim or the murderer
DECIDE what course of action we should take? I
have a tremendous empathy toward those close to
the victim. They go from a normal life, to probably
doing nothing but go through the motions, simply
putting one foot in front of the other for the REST
OF THEIR LIVES. Their lives changed FOREVER.
Never understanding the question that has no
answer -- Why HIM or HER? It's horrible, and I
pity them more than anyone could understand. But
I do not, and cannot care what they DESIRE that
we do to the murderer, if we are to have JUSTICE.
You, I, them, the murderer, the murderer's friends -
ALL have NO SAY in this matter. Only the VICTIM
can speak for what he desires, and his voice has been
silenced, thus society must speak FOR HIM, and for
the rights which society gave him.
> > <clipped>
>
> > It was as reasonable a response as your argument was.
> > I specifically gauged it to be so. If a victim is wronged,
> > the ONLY response we have is to seek retribution from
> > the offender, because we cannot undo the wrong. Yet
> > we most certainly cannot IGNORE it either.
>
> The only response you are willing to accept is retribution. It is not the
> only response available.
>
Actually, can you provide an alternate response that
provides NO retribution of ANY kind, toward the offender,
when he has wronged a victim? And of course, by that
I mean CRIMINALLY wronged. What response to
criminal behavior which has affected a victim would
you presume satisfies Justice, and 'public safety'?
It is NOT theirs to DETERMINE whether they did or did
not.
> from Websters 3rd New International Dictionary
>
> malice
> (3) revengefiul or unfriendly feelings
>
> I suggest that all cases of the death penalty being implemented are deeply
> based in malice.
>
That's ridiculous, of course. The DP is a PENALTY for
a crime. There is obviously no malice intended in ANY
penalty for a crime. The malice is IN THE CRIME.
Society has EVERY RIGHT to respond to that malice.
And doing so does not make it 'with malice,' only with
Justice and 'public safety' in mind. Or would you deny
those two principles to the body of society?
> > > Your example of a contract killer for
> > > one, and many sex offenders as well. Because you say it
> > > doesn't make it so.
> >
> > You misunderstand 'malice' and 'motive.' Because a
> > person murders for money or sexual gratification does
> > not mitigate the malice in the act.
>
> One might as well say that a butcher is malicious toward
> the beast he kills, which is ridiculous.
Yes, it is. That you would compare the slaughter of
an animal to the slaughter of a human, is ridiculous.
> If someone tortures animals for example, this would
> most certainly be malicious. I didn't mention MURDER for sexual
> gratification BTW, I would regard this as most certainly malicious. I said
> "some sex offenders".
Well, I understand what you mean, now that you've
clarified it. But in the context of the DP, a 'sex offender'
is certainly one who murdered for sexual gratification.
We obviously do not sentence rapists to the DP, since
Furman.
> Once again PV, please spare me the rant on the inappropriateness of the
> analogy, it's only an analogy, I don't regard victims as animals, nor do I
> wish to degrade them.
>
Sorry, but analogies should at least be on the same
moral level in the framework of comparison. IMHO.
<agreement clipped>
> >I
> > believe MANY murders reach that sufficient level,
> > and DEMAND that society express outrage about
> > those SPECIFIC murders. I defy you to read of the
> > murders committed by Theodore Frank (you'll find it
> > in my past posts if you search in google), and not
> > find sufficient outrage to believe that this 'animal'
> > should not be entitled to one more atom of our oxygen,
> > EVER. His continued existence should cause us
> > SHAME, rather than any sense of morality that
> > he still walks this planet.
>
> Yes, I read your description in the deterrence thread a
> couple of weeks ago.
> The guy is obviously insane. Killing him is not necessary.
No, I think executing him is VERY necessary. If we are
too look ourselves in the mirror in the morning.
> Treating him may
> well be impossible; as a civil society I believe we have a responsibility to
> try anyway.
And waste all that time and effort in what we agree is
(may be to you) an impossible task? Why? What
purpose is served? Where is the benefit to anything
or anyone by trying to rehabilitate this man? You
speak to me of a 'civil' society. I see a very 'immoral'
society that would determine this man should still be
breathing.
> I agree that a case like this makes it difficult to argue for
> his continued existence, any reasonable person is outraged.
> That's the point
> of my argument that our society has the responsibility to transcend the
> individual.
>
WHY? What is the particular aspect of that 'responsibility'
that makes you claim we should devote wasted effort to
transcend someone like Frank? Is it that you expect us
to LOOK better than him? My God, how difficult is that?
I won't belabor this point any more, because it's a rather
one-off case, that you have monstrous difficulty justifying
keeping him alive. So it's rather unfair of me to keep
hammering on this one particular individual.
<clipped>
> > Again, not relevant. You are perhaps following Earl's
> > lead in presuming that an 'elitist' group of individuals
> > should determine WHAT we should and shouldn't accept.
> > Seriously, that's a symptom of Socialism that thoroughly
> > disgusts me.
>
> Not necessarily. ANY form of social organisation except
> anarchy presumes the
> right of leaders to determine the laws of that society. In a
> democratic
> society we elect such leaders and in so doing give them as
> a group the right
> to pass laws for the rest of us. Socialism is not incompatible
> with this, in
> fact IMHO it is strengthened by this. I have no argument with
> democracy at
> all. I see it as essential to a civil society. OTOH, I would rather
> live in
> a society that DOESN'T have a democratic structure if such
> a structure is
> based on a "race to the bottom", which IMHO, is what is
> happening to a large
> extent in the US and in Australia. Populism per se is no
> basis for good
> government.
>
I will again speak frankly... I AM the common man, and I
will not accept my voice being invalidated. I am against
big government, and Socialism IS big government... 'Big
Brother' government, in fact. I believe government should
work from the bottom up, rather than the top down. When
I SEE my tax dollar at work, and my LOCAL representative
doing his job, I'm satisfied that I'm being represented.
When I see big government at work, I find it difficult to
see WHERE I fit in... and I do not believe I even DO
fit in. Socialism has that special quality that speaks
"We know better than you, so just shush now, and get
some leisure, and we'll handle everything." And people
start to BELIEVE it. Meanwhile, 45% of their earning
capacity is being sucked up by that same government.
And that government has the bad habit of PERPETUATING
itself. Further, I see a general malaise to Socialism.
You see it every time you enter any aspect of the
service industry, both public and private. You are
ignored while salespeople have personal conversations.
You seem to bother them if asking them a question.
Lines are huge. Everything is geared to the private
sector rather than the public. Good grief, you often
have to PAY for the bags that they put your groceries
in. If You go to get anything from the government
you are met with a great indifference. I attribute all
of this to the fact that the person serving you knows
full well that when THEY become a customer they
will be treated exactly the same as they treat YOU.
So why bother? And it is IMPOSSIBLE to purge
this thinking from the society, since job security
is practically assured, in a system that abhors
'firing' an individual.
You didn't see the little smiley??? It's not a hysterical
argument on my part. It's a smarmy remark on your
argument. I see a close resemblance to cattle prods
in your argument. On one hand you seem to be a
liberal, opposed to the DP, and on the other you seem
to think anything goes, short of the DP. Certainly,
your argument totally ignores the views you hold on
rehabilitation.
> > <clipped>
>
> Sorry, the grammar was a bit tangled. I rewrote the sentence and didn't edit
> properly. I meant that the US is culturally predisposed to the
> implementation of the death penalty and hence it was inevitable that it
> would be introduced, at least in some States.
>
I'd agree with that. There is a streak of 'western'
justice that runs through our culture. I'm not really sure
I'd wish it otherwise, because it has its flaws and its
virtues. I would NOT wish to live in a country filled with
tea-sipping 'elitists.' I've said before that given a hill
to take, give me five rednecks any day to five elitists.
That hill will go DOWN. All you'll get from the elitists
is a staff study and 5 different proposals on how to take
that hill. I'll grant you that most other industrialized
countries are safer than the U.S., but that doesn't
mean we don't feel secure in our homes. Our problem
is ONE. It is violence in our culture. Abolishing the
DP will not cure that violence. Violence is a multi-headed
hydra in our country. One could write a litany of reasons
for it. The greatest is disenfranchisement of an entire
race, constituting a major part of our population. We
cannot ignore that problem, nor can we solve it with
social actions. It takes a change in mind-set of a
great percentage of our population to bring it
about. And, sadly, it will undoubtedly not happen in
one generation. But happen it must. And when it
does, you'll see an America that is mightier than
ever, because we have the bonds of a common
language and a common culture across a vast
cornucopia of opportunity and plenty. We had a
Civil War which almost tore us asunder. But we
emerged doubly stronger than if we had lost that war.
Having regained the synergy of a single nation. When
we solve the problem of social disenfranchisement,
we will emerge again doubly stronger than before.
And solving that problem is a promise I will MAKE my
children keep.
PV
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
>
>
>
Exador
> > But od course I haven't. I have always upheld the ability of the State
to
> > act. I have also argued against the desirability of some State action.
There
> > is no conflict in these two arguments.
> >
> Look, Craig -- this is some of what you said regarding
> 'rights' -- "Identify any sentence that resurrects a murder
> victim and hence restores "victims' rights" Now I do
> not need to show they a victim needs to be resurrected
> to have his rights RESTORED. His 'rights' as a victim,
> never LEFT him. They are the same rights he had
> before, except that he is now a victim.
No, he is now dead. Any prior rights are incapable of being exercised due to
that simple fact.
> They are not
> any special kind of right that ONLY victims have. They
> are the same rights that society gives to EVERYONE,
> and only society can abrogate those rights.
Agreed. The State can do whatever it desires.
> And you clearly said -- "No such rights exist, as the
> dead have no rights;ask any music or book publisher."
> Now, look at that -- you have said 'no such rights
> exist....' which is NOT the same as what you now
> claim.
I have conceded that point.
>Now you say 'I also agree with you that society
> has the ability to act on conferred rights in whatever
> way it sees fit. I have never argued otherwise." But you
> HAVE argued otherwise. Your original argument
> was 'no such rights exist.' This of course, presupposes
> society MAY NOT confer rights however it wishes. Now
> you say it MAY.
No, it presupposes that no such rights have been conferred. I was perhaps a
bit hasty in nominating copyright law as an example, the laws of tort are
much more apposite, insofar as they deal with personal injury. AFAIK, and I
AM prepared to be proven wrong, no right to remedy under those laws extends
beyond death. As an example, if a person believes himself to have been
wronged and brings an action accordingly, the action becomes insupportable
and must be abandoned upon the death of the plaintiff. Similarly, a survivor
of a dead person may not seek a remedy on behalf of a that person.They may
well seek relief if they themselves have been harmed by the wrong done to
the dead person, but this goes to retribution, not the rights of victims.
(All IMHO pending confirmation in the US context of course).
A = B. B=C Ergo A=C. This is a logical identity and perfectly arguable
A=B Ergo A=C is a logical fallacy because it presumes an assumption that is
not stated.
I agree. I also believe that in speaking for the victim, society should
limit its response in the interests of all. I'm sure that the family of an
executed person goes through all you have described above as well.
> > > <clipped>
> >
> > > It was as reasonable a response as your argument was.
> > > I specifically gauged it to be so. If a victim is wronged,
> > > the ONLY response we have is to seek retribution from
> > > the offender, because we cannot undo the wrong. Yet
> > > we most certainly cannot IGNORE it either.
> >
> > The only response you are willing to accept is retribution. It is not
the
> > only response available.
> >
> Actually, can you provide an alternate response that
> provides NO retribution of ANY kind, toward the offender,
> when he has wronged a victim? And of course, by that
> I mean CRIMINALLY wronged. What response to
> criminal behavior which has affected a victim would
> you presume satisfies Justice, and 'public safety'?
I've already offered some suggestions PV. Please note that I have not EVER
suggested, nor would I suggest, any sentence which did not include
punishment for misdeed. That would be plain stupid and completely
counter-productive IMHO.
Who said anything about determining it? I simply said that this is a likely
possibility.
> > from Websters 3rd New International Dictionary
> >
> > malice
> > (3) revengefiul or unfriendly feelings
> >
> > I suggest that all cases of the death penalty being implemented are
deeply
> > based in malice.
> >
> That's ridiculous, of course. The DP is a PENALTY for
> a crime. There is obviously no malice intended in ANY
> penalty for a crime. The malice is IN THE CRIME.
> Society has EVERY RIGHT to respond to that malice.
True, the State can do what it likes.
> And doing so does not make it 'with malice,' only with
> Justice and 'public safety' in mind. Or would you deny
> those two principles to the body of society?
Not at all, that's one of your "Miss America" speeches.
Do you really want me to point you to examples of "Big Brother" in your
society? The fact that this NG is very likely being monitored by the NSA/FBI
as we chat is one very simple one that has the potential to impact us all.
Opression is not limited to socialist States
> I believe government should
> work from the bottom up, rather than the top down. When
> I SEE my tax dollar at work, and my LOCAL representative
> doing his job, I'm satisfied that I'm being represented.
You won't be likely to see that in your society or mine. I agree
wholeheartedly with the principle BTW, I'm a tad cynical about the process.
This is not socialism you describe, it is a specific instance from a
specific culture I suspect. I also suspect that the symptoms you describe
are likely to be the same in that culture regardless
of the system of Government in place.
I don't see how. The suggestion I made causes no harm to the offender, it
merely renders him temporarily disabled if he transgresses in the prison
context, thus preventing harm and making it easier to manage a potentially
dangerous situation. I would say that he would consider it preferable to
death or long-term solitary confinement which are the only alternatives I
see.
I hope they succeed, for everyone's sake.
>
> PV
--
Cheers,
Craig
A Planet Visitor
"Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c2432fe$0$4662$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> [Clipped]
> > > But od course I haven't. I have always upheld the ability of the State
> to
> > > act. I have also argued against the desirability of some State action.
> There
> > > is no conflict in these two arguments.
> > >
> > Look, Craig -- this is some of what you said regarding
> > 'rights' -- "Identify any sentence that resurrects a murder
> > victim and hence restores "victims' rights" Now I do
> > not need to show they a victim needs to be resurrected
> > to have his rights RESTORED. His 'rights' as a victim,
> > never LEFT him. They are the same rights he had
> > before, except that he is now a victim.
>
> No, he is now dead. Any prior rights are incapable of being
> exercised due to
> that simple fact.
>
Rights EXIST because they are GIVEN. Whether they
are 'exercised' or not is immaterial. There is a 'right'
to bear arms in our Constitution. One does not need
to 'bear' arms to have that right. In point of fact,
rights are EXERCISED by the body that gives such
rights, and that is Society. They are exercised by
that society by providing laws which provide penalties
when those rights are violated. Such as when one is
MURDERED. We are simply the RECIPIENTS of
those rights.
<clipped>
> >Now you say 'I also agree with you that society
> > has the ability to act on conferred rights in whatever
> > way it sees fit. I have never argued otherwise." But you
> > HAVE argued otherwise. Your original argument
> > was 'no such rights exist.' This of course, presupposes
> > society MAY NOT confer rights however it wishes. Now
> > you say it MAY.
>
> No, it presupposes that no such rights have been conferred.
But rights HAVE BEEN CONFERRED. Our Constitution
confers such rights. And you now agree that society
has the ability to act on those conferred rights. By first
saying 'no such rights exist,' you are denying that our
Constitution clearly states that "the right of the people to
be secure in their person...."
> I was perhaps a bit hasty in nominating copyright law as
> an example, the laws of tort are much more apposite,
> insofar as they deal with personal injury. AFAIK, and I
> AM prepared to be proven wrong, no right to remedy
> under those laws extends beyond death. As an example,
> if a person believes himself to have been wronged and
> brings an action accordingly, the action becomes
> insupportable and must be abandoned upon the death
> of the plaintiff. Similarly, a survivor of a dead person
> may not seek a remedy on behalf of a that person.They
> may well seek relief if they themselves have been
> harmed by the wrong done to the dead person, but this
> goes to retribution, not the rights of victims.
> (All IMHO pending confirmation in the US context of course).
>
That is of course a 'civil' action, not involving the
Constitutional 'rights' of a person, but the fact that
a person has been harmed through other than a
criminal act. Clearly in the case of murder, the
criminal act of that murder does not cease upon
the death of the victim. If it did, there would be
no such crime as 'murder.' The fact is, society becomes
responsible for insuring the 'rights' of that victim
are being protected until society determines the
penalties for abusing those rights of the victim have
satisfied society itself. This goes directly to the
'revenge' or 'punishment' portion of a penalty,
which we understand exists as a part of the
greater issue of 'public safety.' We discussed this
before when looking at the purposes of the CJS,
which were deterrence, rehabilitation, and punishment..
as parts of the overall purpose of 'public safety,'
<clipped>
What the hell are you talking about? A=B until society
says it does not. The assumption is YOURS, that such
rights END at death. 'B' is a member of society holding
the rights given until society SAYS those rights have been
satisfied or terminated. YOU'LL need to provide some
evidence that A is NE to C, because B is alive, and C is
dead. Of course, living and dead are DIFFERENT, but
this does not prove that their RIGHTS are different, since
they were GIVEN by an entity that may define those
rights for BOTH the living and the dead any way it wishes.
Which is what you've agreed with when you said "The
State can do whatever it desires." Quite simply, your
logical conclusion is absurd, IMHO.
You agree, and then you qualify such agreement.
Clearly society SHOULD NOT limit its response in
the interests of all, IMHO. If you are speaking of 'all'
who are personally affected by the murder. Society
MUST detach itself from such, because it speaks
for the VICTIM, and the greater body of society,
and NO ONE else. And certainly, no human
emotion should be attached to reaching a
guilty/innocent conclusion, except the emotional
DRIVE to reach such a conclusion as close to
ACTUALITY as is humanly possible. After
reaching a conclusion that the convicted murderer
was guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt' society must
only limit its response to looking at the EVIDENCE
of the murder, the murderer's past behavior, and
the propensity of that murderer to be recidivist.
In that respect, society can CONSIDER the pleadings
of both the victim's and the murderer's families in
respect to possible RECIDIVISM, but nothing else.
Pity must detach itself from the process, and only
'mercy' should be allowed to be considered, if we
are to presume Justice is our purpose.
<clipped>
> > > The only response you are willing to accept is retribution.
> > > It is not the only response available.
> > Actually, can you provide an alternate response that
> > provides NO retribution of ANY kind, toward the offender,
> > when he has wronged a victim? And of course, by that
> > I mean CRIMINALLY wronged. What response to
> > criminal behavior which has affected a victim would
> > you presume satisfies Justice, and 'public safety'?
>
> I've already offered some suggestions PV. Please note
> that I have not EVER suggested, nor would I suggest,
> any sentence which did not include punishment for
> misdeed. That would be plain stupid and completely
> counter-productive IMHO.
>
You said the only response I am willing to accept is
retribution. My point is: that seems to say you are NOT
willing to accept retribution as part of our justice system.
Obviously, retribution is, and always will be, an integral
part of ANY justice system. Sorry, if I seem to be
pedantic, but you seem to always try and push the
envelope. I am of course, as you now state you are,
UNWILLING to accept a justice system that does not
incorporate SOME measure of punishment. But I am
also unwilling to accept a justice system that expects
punishment to be the ONLY aspect necessary for its
existence.
<clipped>
> Opression is not limited to socialist States.
I did not mean 'big brother' in respect to areas of
national security. I am referring to 'big brother'
in respect to the approach to SOCIAL issues. The
perception that 'all is right in OUR world, go back
to sleep.' You'll not find that feeling in Capitalism.
Usually it is a perception that 'all is NOT right in
our world.' I would not deny the intrusive nature
of intelligence gathering. But do you really believe
that Socialism is ABOVE such behavior? We need
to look at OTHER issues, rather than intelligence
gathering, which can be a subject impacting the
survival of the society in question.
It is the Socialism I saw in every nation on the
Continent of Europe, for over 20 years. Naturally,
I cannot speak of Australian socialism, if your
country even practices it as I recognize it. I
saw a concept of 'indifference' to others, because
of the belief that the State will take care of those
'others.' I saw an air of 'social detachment'
which results from Socialism. I saw a system
that USES those external to its membership as
the more manual labor force (of course, this
exists here as well, but it is no less abhorrent
in Socialism. Yet I perceive that Socialism
casts the finger of shame of this process at
OTHERS, without recognition of its OWN
shame). Further, I saw a system that feeds off
criticism of other systems, to validate its own
existence. Of course, all IMHO.
<clipped>
PV
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
>
>